Schembri and Mizzi claim disclosure failures ahead of Vitals charges

Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi are claiming to have been refused access to “important documents” from the magisterial inquiry into the Vitals Global Healthcare deal ahead of their arraignment next week.

The claims emerge from judicial protests filed earlier today, in which former Chief of Staff at the Office of the Prime Minister and the former Health Minister both allege that the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Police were refusing to hand over the unspecified documents from the Vitals inquiry, which they claim, breached their rights to disclosure of the evidence against them and to a fair trial.

Of the individuals to be charged next Tuesday, Schembri, Mizzi and former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat are facing the most serious charges, amongst them money laundering, bribery and trading in influence, as well as creating or associating with a criminal organisation.  

The charges follow the conclusion of a magisterial inquiry set in motion by NGO Repubblika in 2019.

Both Mizzi and Schembri are arguing that they had not been spoken to before being charged, despite the nature of the charges requiring that an explanation be provided by the suspect before charges are pressed.

They also argued that they had not received “effective disclosure” of the prosecution’s evidence against them. Although the law does not grant this right in cases where the suspect is not being charged under arrest, just over a week ago, a judge decided that Joseph Muscat should receive disclosure of the parts of the inquiry in which he is mentioned.

The prosecution had provided Mizzi and Schembri with copies of the inquiry report, in line with a court order to that effect, but not the appendices which the report makes reference to.

In her reply the Attorney General argued that the magistrate had been clear in saying that all the prosecution was to make available to the defendants was the proces verbal and any other material evidence in the police’s possession, which may have emerged from parallel investigations.

All the remaining documentation would be exhibited in court as part of the magisterial inquiry, said the AG.

The defence lawyers are insisting that the Criminal Code states that all relevant evidence should have been disclosed to their clients as soon as they became suspects. 

The right to full disclosure was also protected by the European Convention on Human Rights as part of the right to a fair trial, Mizzi and Schembri are arguing.

Calling upon the AG and the Police Commissioner to immediately grant them “full disclosure” without further delay, the suspects warned that they would be holding them responsible for resulting damages, and declared their intention to file constitutional proceedings should the situation not be remedied with the required haste.

Schembri and Mizzi have also filed replies to Repubblika’s request that it be admitted as an injured party in the criminal cases against them, arguing that this was a legal manouevre by the NGO in order to be involved in proceedings in which it had no legal juridical interest.

The replies state that Repubblika’s allegations had no foundation in fact or law and go on to describe them as “more akin to Aesop’s fables” than a judicial protest.

Lawyers Edward Gatt, Mark Vassallo and Shaun Zammit signed the judicial protests..