A court of appeal has confirmed the acquittal of former Enemalta financial controller Tarcisio Mifsud, accused of accepting bribes in an oil procurement scandal over 10 years ago.

Mifsud had been cleared of all criminal wrongdoing by a Magistrates’ Court in December but that judgment was appealed by the Attorney General who argued that the first court had completely discarded the testimony of the prosecution’s key witness, George Farrugia.

Farrugia, a local agent of the oil companies featured in the alleged corruption, was granted a pardon in February 2013. He was spared criminal prosecution on condition that he reveals the whole truth and reimburses any funds accrued to him through such criminal acts. 

In her appeal, the Attorney General also argued that the first court had wrongly assessed the evidence put forward which should have resulted in a conviction on all charges. 

The Magistrates’ Court had concluded that Mifsud’s version was “the most credible” and that the prosecution had in no way produced any evidence to annihilate that version.

Mifsud, now 79, was one of seven men charged in court over allegations of having received commissions in the procurement of gas oil by Enemalta between 1998 and 2003, with tenders adjudicated by a fuel procurement committee, chaired by Tancred Tabone between June 2003 and 2005.

Mifsud was Enemalta’s head of finance while Alfred Mallia headed its petroleum division. 

Farrugia claimed that Mallia had assisted him in setting up storage agreements between Enemalta and Total, one of the oil companies he represented.

The company had 20,000 tons of gas oil stored at Hal Saptan at a time when Enemalta was facing a fuel shortage on account of a strike ordered by the General Workers Union against vessels loading products to and from the State’s energy supplier. 

Farrugia claimed that Mallia had approached him saying that he was willing to purchase oil from Total, adding “you have to take care of me.”

From then, Total clinched around two-thirds of the tenders and Farrugia claimed to have paid commissions for every tender awarded. 

Mifsud allegedly entered the scene when Mallia once told Farrugia, while recovering in hospital after a traffic accident, that Enemalta’s financial controller wished to speak to him. 

When the two met, Mifsud told him that he was to “pass on to him what he used to give to Mallia,” Farrugia subsequently told police. 

However, Mifsud always categorically denied the allegations levelled in his direction, including one whereby Farrugia claimed that he once handed him an envelope containing Lm3,000 (€6,988) in his office. 

When confronted by police, after a story about the suspected oil scandal was published by MaltaToday, Mifsud even threatened to sue Farrugia for libel, then-inspector, now Police Commissioner, Angelo Gafa’ testified. 

Mifsud denied knowing Farrugia and stood his ground even when police confronted the two. 

Faced with such diametrically opposed versions the court had to analyse the evidence, including the testimony of other witnesses. 

For the court to find Mifsud guilty, it had to accept the version of the key witness produced by the prosecution which had to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 

The Court of Criminal Appeal, presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera, could not agree with the AG in saying that Mifsud was less credible than Farrugia because as financial manager Mifsud was expected to know who Total’s agent in Malta was. 

Mifsud’s job was not directly related to the oil companies. His job was to handle Enemalta’s finances, observed the judge, throwing out the AG’s first argument.

The court scrutinised all testimonies and observed that tenders were received via ‘telex’ and the machine was kept under lock and key inside the deputy chairman’s office. 

Farrugia claimed that unless he paid those commissions he would miss out on tenders. 

However, Godfrey Scicluna, then assistant financial manager, testified that tenders were always awarded after due discussion and consensus, recalling no occasion when the committee failed to agree since they normally opted for the cheapest offer. 

Scicluna also insisted that he was never pressured by anyone. 

A former chairman at Enemalta, Robert Ghirlando, also testified that Mifsud never tried to impose his preferences on the tender decisions. 

When all was considered “this court finds it difficult to believe Farrugia more than [Mifsud],” concluded Madam Justice Scerri Herrera. 

The court further highlighted the fact that “certain important witnesses,” who sat on the board with Mifsud, were never summoned. 

These included Simon Vella, engineer Pace, deputy chairman Manuel Borda, Mifsud’s secretary, Marthese Gauci as well as Farrugia’s siblings. 

The prosecution could also have produced telephone calls exchanged between Farrugia and Mifsud but never did so. 

The court had “serious doubts about what Farrugia had testified and did not feel that the prosecution had proved its case up to the degree of moral certainty that [Mifsud] as a public officer had accepted any gift so as to give an advantage to Farrugia by virtue of the office he occupied,” concluded the judge, throwing out the appeal and confirming the acquittal.

Lawyer Edward Gatt was defence counsel.