The Panama Papers case is the only remaining appeals case being heard by outgoing judge Antonio Mizzi before his retirement in two weeks’ time.

The judge will continue to hear the case on Thursday, according to a decree delivered last week, only eight days before his 65th birthday and the day he is, by law, expected to retire.

Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi.

Mr Justice Mizzi presides over the Criminal Court as a court of appeal. The Sunday Times of Malta is informed that the Panama Papers appeals case is the only one remaining in his caseload after some 150 pending appeals that had initially been assigned to him were handed over to another judge, Consuelo Scerri Herrera, following her promotion in June. Since then, no new appeals were assigned to Mr Justice Mizzi.

According to a legal source, a good number of the 150 cases had been pending for months before they were ultimately handed over to Madame Justice Scerri Herrera.

With the Panama Papers case, Mr Justice Mizzi set the continuation of the appeal just days after the Constitutional Court overturned a challenge against him not to preside over the case.

The appeal was filed by the Attorney General as well as Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, Tourism Minister Konrad Mizzi, chief of staff Keith Schembri, Malcolm Scerri, Adrian Hillman, Brian Tonna and Karl Cini.

Last year, former Nationalist Party leader Simon Busuttil requested an inquiry following revelations that both the Tourism Minister and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff had opened secret companies in Panama. In his request, Dr Busuttil had also requested an investigation into whether other top government officials, including the Prime Minister, broke money-laundering rules.

Following a ruling by Magistrate Ian Farrugia ordering the launch of a criminal inquiry into the allegations, the Attorney General together with the seven high-profile personalities appealed the decision. These appeals were to be heard before Mr Justice Mizzi, who was on duty on the day, prompting Dr Busuttil to challenge this in light of the fact that the judge is married to Labour MEP Marlene Mizzi.

After Mr Justice Mizzi refused to recuse himself, Dr Busuttil filed a separate constitutional case claiming a violation of his right to a fair hearing and requesting that the appeals be assigned to a different member of the judiciary.

While insisting that he had no doubts about the integrity of the judge, Dr Busuttil was adamant that Mr Justice Mizzi’s marriage to the Labour MEP cast a shadow over his impartiality in the case.

In July, the First Hall of the Civil Court upheld the request by Dr Busuttil, ordering that a different judge be assigned to the case. The court noted that the fact that the judge was married to the Labour MEP did not in itself put his impartiality in doubt but when this was coupled with comments made by Ms Mizzi online, it gave rise to serious doubts about justice being seen to be done.

On Monday, however, following an appeal by the Attorney General, the Constitutional Court found that while Dr Busuttil was justified in highlighting concerns about a right to a fair trial, he had no right to ask for the judge to be recused, as he could not be considered a victim in the case. Therefore, Mr Justice Mizzi could hear the appeals case.

Speaking following the decision, Dr Busuttil, together with his lawyer, PN MP Jason Azzopardi, said they would be taking the matter to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.