Updated 5.40pm with more detail.

Two of the charges set to be faced by a number of former Pilatus Bank top officials have become time-barred, the lawyer for civil society group Repubblika complained in court on Thursday. 

Jason Azzopardi accused the State of "deliberately" allowing time to lapse, letting criminals off the hook.

The two crimes he claimed were time-barred are making a false declaration to a public authority and criminal association, which are both subject to a two and five-year prescription.

Azzopardi was making submissions before the Constitutional Court upon an appeal by the State Advocate seeking to reverse a decision by Mr Justice Ian Spiteri Bailey granting an interim measure to Repubblika to stop Magistrate Nadine Lia from continuing to hear challenge proceedings.

Repubblika is challenging the authorities to prosecute senior Pilatus officials in line with a call made in a magisterial inquiry, but it also argues that the case should not be heard by Magistrate Lia because of a conflict of interest.

Azzopardi said that  while the case was being played out before the Magistrates’ Court and the First Hall, Civil Court, “irremediable prejudice” has already occurred because two out of the four charges have lapsed under a two-year prescription, Azzopardi said. 

“I’m saying this here for the first time. And I’m going to shock you,” he told  Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti and Mr Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul. 

He then went on to set out a time-line of events that led to the time-barring issue.

Last January, Repubblika had filed a criminal act, asking the Police Commissioner to prosecute a number of former Pilatus officials indicated in the conclusions of the magisterial inquiry into the alleged financial crimes at the now shuttered bank. 

That act concerned four crimes. 

Repubblika only received an acknowledgment.

In April, it sent a reminder and followed that up with an application to institute challenge proceedings on June 27. 

When the case was assigned to Magistrate Lia, Repubblika immediately requested her recusal knowing that her father-in-law, lawyer Pawlu Lia, had assisted one of the prominent persons who had an account at Pilatus Bank. 

That request was also made in light of the fact that Magistrate Ian Farrugia, who conducted the Pilatus inquiry, had instructed the re-opening of the Egrant inquiry, the terms of which had originally been set down by Joseph Muscat’s lawyer, Pawlu Lia himself. 

But between June and a few weeks ago, two of the charges flagged by Repubblika became time-barred, said Azzopardi.

“That’s what the Police Commissioner wanted,” stressed the lawyer. 

Those crimes, envisaged under Articles 188 and 83A(4) of the Criminal Code concerned making a false declaration to a public authority and involvement in an organization of two or more persons with a view of commit criminal offences.

The first was subject to a five-year prescription, while the second offence was time-barred by the lapse of two years.

And that term could only be interrupted upon service of criminal charges.

Time was wasted between June and October, he went on.

And that’s the “irremediable prejudice” suffered by Repubblika.

Repubblika is insisting that Mr Justice Spiteri Bailey’s decision should be confirmed, so that no more precious time is wasted and the challenge proceedings may proceed as soon as possible. 

Earlier in Thursday's hearing, State lawyer James D’Agostino argued that this case presented a “serious matter.”

The message sent out was that recusal of a member of the judiciary may be achieved by filing parallel proceedings for an interim measure.

Removing a case from one magistrate and assigning it to another was a “very dangerous decision” encouraging forum shopping.

By upholding its request for an interim measure, Repubblika attained the end it was after.

In fact, when Repubblika originally filed its constitutional case it requested either the speeding up of the challenge proceedings or else for those proceedings to be put on hold until their constitutional claims were decided.

From the very outset, Repubblika gave this case a “political overtone,” said D’Agostino.

As soon as the NGO got to know that the challenge was assigned to Magistrate Nadine Lia, it immediately called for her recusal, claiming that her father-in-law was the lawyer of former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and his chief of staff, Keith Schembri.

Repubblika also said that the Magistrate had been involved in a political activity before she was appointed to the bench.

But Pawlu Lia, the Magistrate’s father in law, featured nowhere in the challenge, did not represent the Police Commissioner and none of the Pilatus officials named in Repubblika’s challenge.

Confirming the interim measure, would leave no scope for the case on the merits as Repubblika would have attained its end, concluded the lawyer.

“[Magistrate] Nadine Lia should not be the sacrificial lamb here,” finished off D’Agostino, adding that allowing a recusal to take place in such manner “would ultimately be an attack upon the judiciary.”

After the three judges briefly retired in chambers, they returned and deferred the case for a decision next week.