The right to remain silent is meant to serve a good purpose, offering protection to persons who may incriminate themselves by what they say. However, invoking it at all times, on a pick-and-choose basis, risks abuse.

The right to silence is often invoked in court or during police interrogations. But there have been occasions when it was used during hearings of parliamentary select committees, notably the public accounts committee.

True, there were instances when the line of questioning looked more like a fishing expedition. This approach forced those being questioned – especially if they happened to be politicians or people close to them with a lot to lose – to only give the barest minimum of information, if at all.

Lately, Karl Cini, the former partner at Nexia BT facing money laundering charges, adopted more than a guarded approach and has cast as wide a safety net as possible.

The argument that he and his lawyer made appears to have been that, since they have no idea what sort of additional charges Cini might face in the future, he would rather keep his mouth shut.

“I exercise my right to silence,” he replied to every question chairperson Darren Carabott put to him. He even refused to say what his profession was and neither would he go into detail about his role within Nexia BT.

Cini was summoned by the house committee because it is evaluating a report by the auditor general on the controversial, scandal-ridden Electrogas deal in which Nexia BT played a significant if not leading role.

Of course, Cini’s determination to remain tight-lipped can only raise suspicions that he may know things that go beyond the shocking shortcomings already highlighted by the National Audit Office. Since he has said so little, we do not know exactly how he could incriminate himself in connection with a deal about which he is not facing any criminal proceedings.

However, his determination to say nothing even provoked a condemnation from the speaker of the house. In a ruling, the speaker had already pointed out that a witness can only remain silent if facing criminal charges linked to matters being considered by a house committee. If the right to silence is invoked, the committee members are correct to demand an explanation.

Cini defied that decision, which forced the committee chair to again seek the speaker’s direction, asking him to find Cini guilty of breach of privilege. Speaker Anġlu Farrugia agreed that Cini was in breach, noting that the committee was in duty bound to scrutinise the auditor general’s report.

Giving Cini one last chance before proceeding to set a breach of privilege procedure in motion, the speaker made two noteworthy suggestions: that the committee could hear certain evidence behind closed doors or the law could be changed so that testimony cannot be used as evidence in court.

Cini and his legal counsel appeared before the committee again last Friday and informed it of a constitutional case over the speaker’s ruling and the guidelines for witnesses appearing before the committee. The committee has now had to suspend Cini’s testimony pending the court’s decision.

Cini’s right not to incriminate himself must be protected. But the people have a sacrosanct right to know how their money is being spent. Surely the learned lawyer could have guided his client diligently enough to fulfil both his client’s and the public’s rights.

In this situation, the speaker’s recommendations demand serious consideration.

It is time to strengthen parliament’s power to obtain answers on behalf of the people it represents.