menu

Vitals fraud: Auditor General, Malta Enterprise and former Lands Commissioner testify

Compilation of evidence continues against former deputy prime minister Chris Fearne, Central Bank governor Edward Scicluna and 13 other defendants facing charges over the fraudulent hospitals concession to Vitals Global Healthcare

matthew_agius
Last updated on 22 August 2024, 4:03pm
by Matthew Agius
1 min read
16:02 This live-blog has ended. Matthew Vella
16:01 The court notes that he was the last witness for today, but Magistrate Caruana says he wanted to make some points to the lawyers.

An application had been filed about a witness who testified about the payments made to experts and the court was awaiting the replies of the defence lawyers, but only two or three had done so. The witness application was to inform the court that the payments also covered previous inquiries and asked to be allowed to exhibit a redacted version, in which the other inquiries were blacked out.

The court extends the period in which replies to this request could be filed to August 27.

Prosecution says that in October the foreign experts will be in Malta to testify in other proceedings, and asks that the acts of the case be sent back to the AG. The magistrate explains that he needs to know who will testify to allocate sufficient time to the sitting.

Adjourned to 3 October at 9:30am, and then on 11 October. Matthew Vella
15:45 Deguara’s testimony is over. Matthew Vella
15:45 Laywer Ezekiel Psaila asks where the information on which the report was based came from. “There were instances where we used an in-house lawyer, but obviously at times we had to consult with our external legal advisor... These consultations were mostly about legal issues.”

The court dismisses are irrelevant Psaila’s insistence that the witness identify the lawyer who had provided the advice.” Matthew Vella
15:44 Lawyer David Farrugia Sacco asks a question to the witness: What was the negotiating committee supposed to evaluate about the financing aspect? “We found and commented on aspects in the final agreement that were never mentioned in the RfP. These clearly emerged during the negotiation process.”

DFS: Were the variations substantial in nature? “De facto there was a difference. In the final agreement there was a clause that government was to pay €8 million to Vitals if the contract was terminated... I cannot answer at all [about financing] because, and this is definitely bad governance, there is no record of the negotiations. We do not know on what basis they were negotiated. We were given nothing about the negotiations.” Matthew Vella
15:38 Galea asks what the remit given by the Public Accounts Committee was. “As have said again and again, our yardstick is good governance. If we encounter issues which go beyond that, we inform the perm sec or the police and leave it to them.”

Did he notice (perm sec) Rapa ever doing anything that he shouldn’t have? “Never.”

Did you see any payments, made by government officials on behalf of the government of Malta, that should not have been paid? “No.”

Filletti cross examines the witness. Deguara confirms that two representatives of the hospitals which were to be handed over, were present for related meetings. The government gave the same costings that it had received and that generally speaking, the payments to Vitals were for services rendered, to continue operating the hospitals. “There were many different invoices.”

The lawyer asks Deguara to confirm that all the payments were for the running of the hospitals. “But there were other payments, too,” Deguara replies. “Investments that should have been made by concessionaire should have come from medical tourism. The point of this project was to avoid payments by the government.”

Filletti: Do you know as a fact that (former finance minister permanent secretary) Alfred Camilleri had asked IAID for an internal audit? “No.” (The IAID is an internal anti-fraud unit at the OPM).

Do you know that this investigation found nothing irregular? “No. How am I supposed to know? This question is not fair! How am I supposed to know, IAID investigations are confidential.”

He had sent for Alffed Camilleri after the report was completed, he says.

Franco Galea has more questions: Had the [RfP] negotiations failed, would the entire process have stopped there? “Yes.”

Galea: So for the end result, the initial evaluation was effectively rendered irrelevant. “I disagree. If it was irrelevant, there wouldn’t have been any negotiations with Vitals.”

The question is rephrased, and Deguara replies that the RfP would have had a reduced importance after negotiations.

Galea:W hatever was negotiated, in order for a contract to be signed with Vitals, there had to be the government’s fiat. “Of course. Before each of these agreements were signed there was cabinet approval, but then there were subsequent amendments.” Matthew Vella
15:34 Stephen Tonna Lowell begins the defence’s cross-examination. “Do you know that the AG requested that this contract is not terminated?” asks the lawyer. Francesco Refalo objects as this was not part of the original testimony. Overruled.

Tonna Lowell: “Are you aware that the same AG who is accusing everyone of everything, was involved in advising that this contract not be terminated?”

“Essentially, the advice we received was that the amounts should be paid,” continues the witness.

Franco Galea takes over cross-examination, asking Deguara whether any of “his people” were lawyers. “Should I answer this question?” he asks the magistrate. Refalo: “The witness is here in representation of the office, he presented the report and is responsible for it, who was in his team is not relevant.”

The court allows the question. “Yes there was a lawyer,” answers Deguara. Matthew Vella
15:32 Deguara tells the prosecution that he doesn’t know why the agreement was negotiated as it was, gut confirmed that the contract was very much stacked in Vitals’s favour. “If you don’t have a clear picture, the audited accounts give a clear picture of the financial situation of a company... that is why we said that the failure to have audited accounts for four whole years was not a good thing.” He adds that the second issue with good governance was unnecessary haste. Due diligence was not carried out. "We could not find an explanation for this." Matthew Vella
15:07 “Our findings indicate a substantial difference between the RfP and the agreement with Vitals and the net result always favoured Vitals, and that was one of the problems of good governance.” Matthew Vella
15:06 “We found evidence that this agreement was not in the interest of the government, because the money received would be less than that paid by government... that is, the government was not being reimbursed enough.” Matthew Vella
15:06 Deguara says the Cabinet had decided about all the contracts and side agreements. Cabinet had not upheld several amendments proposed and it was the Auditor General’s conclusion that its effect was to make it harder for the government to control what was going on. There was a policy decision on events of default, and that no action had been taken not to disrupt ongoing discussions on such events of default. Matthew Vella
15:05 Deguara: “Principle of Good governance is that when you are dealing with healthcare, you must have expertise in the sector. In time we noted that this did not happen and the ministry for health was not consulted. We are saying that Health was not involved. Whether or not they should have is not up to us.” Matthew Vella
15:05 The lawyers are still making submissions on this point. De Marco objects to him saying statements like “we felt”. “Would saying ‘we concluded’ make you feel better?” the witness hits back. The witness is directed to resume his testimony, only for him to be interrupted instantly by Charles Mercieca, who says that the nature of his testimony could mislead jurors, “who will ultimately be directed by the judge presiding the Criminal Court.” Matthew Vella
14:42 Prosecution asks what differences the NAO had noticed between the RfP and MoU, but the defence objects. The magistrate says this is hearsay, given that the source of the actual information already exists. Lawyer Francesco Refalo argues that the witness was not being asked for his interpretation. “He is being asked about what he differences he had personally seen.” Matthew Vella
14:35 The prosecution asks whether the subjects had cooperated with the investigation. “Essentially, we found cooperation from almost everyone. Some send you the docs you request in two days, others need to be reminded.” The only exception was jurisdictions in which their law prohibits them from disclosing sensitive commercial information. “Our findings [on good governance] are based on evidence.” Deguara says the NAO doesn’t have the mandate or the tools to investigate matters beyond good governance. Matthew Vella
14:34 Deguara explains the contents of the three volumes of the NAO audit: the first in 2020 focused on the RfP, with an addendum later added once the MoU was reported in the press. The second report was on the negotiations and how the agreement was drawn up, right up to the acquisition of the VGH shares by Steward. The third report in 2023, focused on the unsuccessful negotiations with Steward, which came to nothing. “We focus on issues of good governance. We follow international audit standards. Good governance is based on accountability and transparency. Those are the two pillars of good governance. This audit is about a procurement issue... We are government’s auditors so the majority of our information is obtained from government departments and institutions.” Matthew Vella
14:24 Magistrate Caruana rules that Deguara should testify, in view of the fact that Deguara had been summonsed to testify about the reports drawn up by the NAO which had already been exhibited in the acts of the inquiry. The court states, however, that his testimony “should be limited to that permissible at law.” The witness is called back into the courtroom. Matthew Vella
14:23 Filletti replies that the law is clear on the distinction between ordinary, and expert witnesses, the latter of whom must have a specialist skill or knowledge which the court does not have.

“When a doctor testifies as an ordinary witness, he gives evidence about what he saw during his own examination... but it is up to the court to decide whether the injuries are grievous or not. Here we have a situation where he is not a doctor, accountant or lawyer... My colleague says that he has heard witnesses. That is already a problem, because it is the Criminal Code which lays out the procedure on how an expert is to hear witnesses. If this procedure wasn’t followed we already have a problem... All the witness evidence gathered by the Auditor General constituted hearsay... His conclusion relies on the information provided to him ex post facto.”

“We have heard what they told him and what emails he was given. His conclusion is subjective to him, on the basis of information that was provided to him by virtue of his position.”

 Matthew Vella
14:13 The prosecution submits that Deguara had been summonsed to testify in his capacity as Auditor General and in this role he had heard several witnesses. Therefore his opinions are admissible, the AG says. Matthew Vella
14:13 It should be pointed out at this juncture that having used Deguara’s report to support their arguments before prima facie was granted, the defence lawyers are now arguing that he is not an admissible witness. Matthew Vella
14:13 Defence lawyer Giannella De Marco, for Alan Bonnici, makes a similar argument to Filletti’s. “Here we are in the criminal law sphere...opinions on governance and otherwise have no place here.”

Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca submits that legal criteria for admissibility had been established by case law. “Let us imagine that he was not the Auditor General, but appointed by the police to carry out the same exercise... an ex-parte witness (a witness brought by one of the parties).” Matthew Vella
14:12 Lawyer Steven Tonna Lowell, who is assisting Fearne and Scicluna, explains that the majority of the NAO report consisted of statements of fact and not opinion. “The experts gave great import to what the Auditor’s General said.” Despite being arraigned as a group, every defendant had their own particular legal situation, and that of his client was that Deguara should testify. Matthew Vella
14:11 The court notes that Filletti, on behalf of permanent secretary Ronald Mizzi, was objecting to Deguara’s testimony on the basis of the fact that he had expressed his opinion in the NAO reports and as he was not a court-appointed expert, these reports are inadmissible. Matthew Vella
14:05 The prosecution counters that admissibility should be countered at a later stage. “I will be asking him about the reports in the inquiry. He was called as a defence witness for the purposes of prima facie...” Filletti replies that Charles Deguara had testified solely about the freezing order and not the merits. “If the AG truly has the absolute prerogative to produce evidence itself and the court has not, the AG must be more judicious and not have a free hand....” Matthew Vella
14:02 The lawyer suggests that the testimony is inadmissible. “He is going to talk about administrative reports. They remain his subjective opinion on what he perceived. As he is not a court-appointed expert, but a regular witness, he is precluded from expressing an opinion in his testimony.” Matthew Vella
14:02 Lawyer Steano Filletti asks to discuss a point of law with the court. Deguara is sent out temporarily. Matthew Vella
14:02 Charles Deguara, Auditor General, takes the stand. The NAO prepared three reports about the deal. Matthew Vella
14:01 The witness is now cross-examined by Stefano Filletti, who asks about the statements he gave to the inquiry.

Galea says that the MoU contained nothing extraordinary. “In this case there was a presentation on the provision of services so the government discussed the provision of services.”

Filletti: “I understand that this MoU contains minutes of this meeting and the agreed way forward.”

Galea says there might have been minor changes but told the lawyer that “in substance you are correct.”

The lawyer confronts the witness with the conclusion of the inquiry which states that part of the MoU he had helped draft put Vitals at a great advantage because they had access to secret information.

“Advantage, definitely not. There was no issue of advantage or otherwise. The fact that they knew about it before might have given them time to prepare the request for proposas, but there is no info in the MoU except the obligations on Barts... those conditions remained the same.”

Galea says he had not provided extraordinary information to the bidder.

Now cross-examined by the prosecution, Galea says that the MoU information “definitely gave no advantage as there was no information on the concession. But if another bidder had come forward I would have given them the same information... Even after the business plan.”

He says the information in the MoU was not reserved solely to them. “So had other bidders applied, I would not have created any advantage.”

Cross-examined by Giannella De Marco, the witness confirms that he did not have medical knowledge that could have provided an advantage to somebody. The RfP on the concession, was different to the MoU, suggests the lawyer. “The MoU was not legally binding, not only because of the clause, but also because of the business plan... to be legally binding it needed a concrete deliverable. There was nothing of this in it.”

Galea says that when a presentation of the project came through, the MoU had lapsed.

The witness confirms that the hospitals concession dealt with the Gozo hospital while the MoU dealt with something completely different. Matthew Vella
13:35 Galea is explaining in detail how business plans at ME work.

Before the Vitals contract, there was a blank contract with all the conditions for the person who would take over of the Gozo hospital “whoever they were.” “The business plan was done and the MoU deliverables condition was fulfilled.” After a meeting and presentation, (then energy and health minister) Konrad Mizzi emailed him to tell Vitals that the government felt that it was not in line with the government’s wishes.

What did the MoU say? “It said that we were interested in [privatising] the Gozo hospital... we added other conditions and the deliverable was that a business plan be submitted within months.” That deliverable was satisfied, he said. He adds that the MoU was not secret. It was not made public by a court decision. “We had a request from local media who then wrote to the FOI commissioner. We didn’t give it to them due to clauses and they took it to the DPC and then the courts, which upheld our position. The reason for its non-disclosure was commercial sensitivity... but it wasn’t some secret.” Matthew Vella
13:19 Sitting resumes.

Mario Galea, from Malta Enterprise, takes the stand. He had been at ME from 2004 until he moved to Indis, where in August 2016 he returned to ME and staying there till 2019.

He says VGH were granted an emphyteutic grant on government land. A third-party opinion from an auditor was brought in to confirm that the project would benefit the economy. External experts were often requested on legal, audit and financial issues. “This was of an industrial nature... we thought we should request an extra opinion,” he says of the selected firm RSM. Matthew Vella
12:51 Mamo says that in the present day, such transfers are regulated by a different law, but the government’s prerogative to change the ownership of its lands remained untouched. The law changed to make this easier, he confirms.

Magistrate: “So you have the ownership staying the same but the possessor changing.”

Filletti: “More than possessor, administrator, because they get rights and obligations.”

Lawyer Michael Sciriha asks the witness whether he had ever signed an MoU. He explains to the court that he wants to establish whether things were done according to usual practice. “I have but very rarely,” replies the witness. “The advice I was given by the AG [at the time] was that the MoU is not binding.”

The court calls a ten-minute recess. Matthew Vella
12:41 Subsequent to the publication of the legal notices, Mamo mentions that the contract of sale to VGH had been present. Cross-examined by Filletti, Mamo says his role as Commissioner for Lands was “to sign on behalf of the Government”. Asked whether he was the Head of the Lands Department, Mamo says he was “not exactly.” He specifies the structure.

Filletti asks whether the Lands Dept. was the only authority that administered government property. “It would be impossible. That is why you have MIP and INDIS,” he replies. For example, social housing is handled by the Housing Authority.

Filletti refers to the Land Disposal Act (Ch 268 of the laws of Malta). Mamo: “There were several methods: selling by tender, auction, direct sale... I don’t remember them all but the majority of them were done by parliamentary resolution.”

The two legal notices transferred rights and obligations of the administration of the lands, he says. No money was involved for the department, he says in reply to a question from the lawyer. “We would do similar transfers on a daily basis,” Mamo says.

Would the letter be written by the minister? Asks Filletti. “I don’t know who would write it, but it would be signed by the Minister, at the time Michael Falzon and countersigned by Deborah Schembri.” Matthew Vella
12:30 Peter Mamo, summonsed as representative of industrial parks regulator Indis, tells Court he was a Lands Department employee, and informs Court he only coincidentally brought a copy of some of the documents requested by the prosecution. One of the documents, dated 6 April 2015, deals with the transfer of Saint Luke’s Hospital and Karin Grech Hospital to VGH; they were signed by ministers CHris Cardona, Michael Falzon and Emanuel Zahra who had been chairman of Malta Industrial Parks (Indis) at the time.

Falzon had signed the letter on 22 March 2015, with Cardona adding his signature on 26 May 2015, Mamo says.

Another set of documents deal with the Gozo General Hospital. There were three requests, one superseding the other. First by Malta Enterprise in Feb 2015, signed by Cardona and Falzon. The prosecutor notes that both documents had been signed both before and after the date specified on them.

Another document states that instead of going to ME, as stipulated in the previous letter, the property was to be transferred to Malta Industrial Parks; with ME withdrawing their request. The ME document is dated February 2014 but he says that is a typo, as clarified in a footnote.

Next document signed by Cardona 2016 and Deborah Schembri carry no date. “This one supersedes everything. The sentence before last reads ‘this request supersedes every previous request by MIP.’”

The magistrate asks what these documents were needed for. “Today the law has changed but at the time... we could pass on rights and obligations to MIP by means of a legal notice. Today it doesn’t happen through legal notice but through a contract.”

Court: If a request to switch ownership was made at that time, what was the mechanism? “At the time, the mechanism was that a legal notice is published.”

Prosecutor Rebekah Spiteri asks what the procedure is today. Mamo says that this is done through a notarial contract. Matthew Vella
12:16 Lawyer Stefano Filletti asks to cross examine Cardona. “You mentioned your involvement in this concession.”

“No. At no time did I say I was involved in the concession.”

“The MoU. In it, did you encounter any irregularity or illegality?”

“No.”

“So you were satisfied?”

“Yes, because it was non-binding... it lapsed. Dead.”

Cardona: Normally it is requested by the government itself or the investors for ‘institutional comfort,’ which would be useful when seeking financing from banks, as it would show a measure of interest on the part of the government.

Franco Debono continues the cross-examination. “On Dr. Filletti’s question, if Cardona can check paragraph 3 of the MoU. Does he confirm that this non-binding nature emerges from the document itself?”

Cardona: “If I’m not mistaken it was 4 months not 6.” The witness reads the clause and confirms the defence lawyer’s argument. “It also refers to due diligence. If it is negative, the memorandum is revoked ipso facto.”

Prosecutor asks what the point of signing an MoU is if it is non-binding. “ Cardona: There is a difference. The investor is expressing an interest in a project and the government is showing interest in the investor’s offer.... There are many reasons, but it is still non-binding.”

After confirming that photocopies of the documents Cardona had exhibited in the other compilation of evidence were true copies, Cardona steps off the witness stand and leaves the courtroom. Matthew Vella
12:07 Cardona says the governmental practice is always that when, a foreign investor is interested in investing in Malta, ministers do what they can to try and attract that investment, as well as seeing who they are. “This type of memoranda is a non-binding agreement. They would ask us for something in writing with the government. In the meantime, the government would be doing its research on the signatories but that was something others would do.” He was not involved in due diligence. That was carried out by Malta Enterprise. “They would do the evaluation. The minister is not there for this.” Matthew Vella
12:01 He again insists that the press had misreported his earlier testimony, telling the court that he had read the memorandum of understanding before signing it. “I don’t know where they got that idea [that he had not read it before signing] from.” The answer to that question is: his own words to the court.

“Mario Galea had spoken to me... and sent an email to them... and the memorandum expired. If I’m not mistaken there was a term of some 6 months.” Matthew Vella
12:00 “This is not a new practice,” he says, but dates back to the setting up of Malta Enterprise (formerly Malta Development Corporation) in the 1970s.

“Contrary to what was reported yesterday, I did read the documents,” he says of the business plan tied to development of Barts Medical school. “What happened is, that in time, we realised that the proposals did not fall in line with the government’s healthcare plans and didn’t contemplate the development of St. Lukes and only focused on Gozo.”

The memorandum was terminated, he said. “My story ends here.” Matthew Vella
11:59 “I did not have discussions, the discussions were done by Malta Enterprise with investors as always. When foreign investors express interest...negotiations begin. In the course of these negotiations a memorandum is signed. Yesterday I exhibited a list of memoranda I signed in my tenure.” Matthew Vella
11:59 Former Economy Minister Chris Cardona takes the stand now.

He asks to address the court. “I testified yesterday in the proceedings against JM et and the reporting of my testimony by the Times of Malta and MaltaToday went completely opposite to what I said... He says that he expects the reports on today’s sitting will accuse him of changing his version. These are people who for the purposes of their malice...”

Court interrupts him and tells him that these proceedings are separate and that it would only be relying on his testimony today. Matthew Vella
11:51 After Scerri steps off the witness stand, the next witness is called in: Josephine Cassar, permanent secretary (people and HR division) OPM. She says she had been given a list of names: Fearne, Scicluna, Ronald Mizzi, Alfred Camilleri, Joseph Rapa, Kenneth Deguara, Jean Carl Farrugia, Deborah Ann Chappell, Bradley Gatt, James Camenzuli, Emanuel Castagna, and Robert Borg whom she was asked to establish whether they were public officers or public officials - She also explains the difference.

Mr. Chris Fearne is a public official, employed as a consultant.
Ronald Mizzi is also a public official.
Alfred Camilleri had been a public official in 2020.
Rapa and Camenzuli are also public officials, Cassar tells the court.
The remainder were not. Matthew Vella
11:48 She does the same with regards to Edward Scicluna. Matthew Vella
11:44 Eleanore Scerri, Clerk of the House, is next to take the stand. She had been asked to exhibit a copy of the oaths of appointment sworn by Chris Fearne, and other documents, including his asset declarations. Matthew Vella
11:43 Deguara is a director of The Convenience Shop Holding plc, the food retail chain, as well as Horizon Finance plc and Shoreline Mall plc, developers of the Shoreline at Smart City. He had previously acted as a spokesperson for Sadeen Group, the Jordanian developers of American University of Malta. Matthew Vella
11:43 Kevin Deguara is one of five lawyers, together whis law firm DF Advocates and partner Jean Carl Farrugia, facing charges of having participated in a criminal activity and criminal association, and document fraud, including documents related to VAT. Matthew Vella
11:42 The DF Advocates law firm held the brief for Vitals Global Healthcare. Matthew Vella
11:42 Today’s first witness is Louis Buhagiar, a representative from JobsPlus. He had been asked to exhibit the full employment histories of DF Advocates lawyers Jean Carl Farrugia, Kevin Deguara and Kenneth Deguara. This he does and, in the absence of any cross-examination, leaves the courtroom. Matthew Vella
11:38 And now, the Fearne-Scicluna proceedings are starting, again in the court of Magistrate Leonard Caruana.

Magistrate Caruana is taking attendance, noting the presence of the defendants and their respective legal teams in the acts of the case. Matthew Vella
11:37 Clarification here: we are still waiting for the Fearne-Scicluna compilation to start.

After the last witness, a bank representative, steps off the stand, Prosecutor Shelby Aquilina informs the court that their witnesses for today have testified. A ME Direct Plc representative did not show up but the court notes that it will not be taking any further action against the representative in view of the fact that a sworn declaration had been submitted.

The court orders that the Attorney General is provided with a scanned copy of the proceedings. Matthew Vella
11:27 More on that story on this link here. Matthew Vella
11:27 Accutor AG had received €3.6 million from Steward Healthcare during the period when it took over the 30-year concession of three Maltese state hospitals from Vitals Global Healthcare. Former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat is believed to have received €60,000 from the company, payments made under the terms of an indefinite consultancy contract drafted between Muscat and Accutor, and related company Spring X Media in February 2020. Matthew Vella
11:20 For now, however, we are being treated to a procession of bank representatives who are telling the court that they did not hold accounts for Wasay Bhatti. Bhatti is the director of the company Accutor AG, a payroll company suspected of having taken money from Steward Healthcare International, and at the same time assigning a consultancy contract to former prime minister Joseph Muscat.

The same representatives have already taken the witness stand at least once before, in related proceedings. Matthew Vella
11:16 Magistrate Leonard Caruana reads from an application that was filed by the prosecution yesterday, in which it requests that the court hear a number of witnesses, ranging from representatives of various banks, to the forensic experts who assisted the inquiry, as well as the former economy minister. Matthew Vella
10:10 Good morning. Senior court reporter Matthew Agius will be updating us on the proceedings of today’s compilation of evidence from the law courts in Valletta. Matthew Vella

Magistrate Leonard Caruana will hear a number of witnesses testify today, as the compilation of evidence against former deputy prime minister Chris Fearne, Central Bank governor Edward Scicluna and 13 other defendants who are facing charges over the fraudulent private hospitals’ concession to Vitals Global Healthcare.  

In a decree issued after the previous sitting, on July 24, the court ruled that there was a prima facie case to be heard against the accused, paving the way for them to be indicted and tried before the Criminal Court. 

Among the witnesses requested for today’s sitting is former economy minister Chris Cardona, who testified yesterday in the parallel criminal proceedings against former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. 

On the witness stand yesterday, Cardona appeared to distance himself from the Memorandum of Understanding which he had signed with Vitals in his ministerial capacity.  

He told the court that he had not read the document before signing it and had only done so in preparation for his testimony before the National Audit Office. When pressed by the court, Cardona said: “I was the minister responsible for Malta Enterprise. They asked me to sign it and I signed it.” 

But later that same afternoon, Cardona took to Facebook to accuse the press of maliciously distorting his testimony, despite it being reported in real time.  

Also expected to testify are several forensic accounting experts, who had been appointed to assist the magisterial inquiry into the hospitals deal.

Matthew Agius was Senior Reporter on Law and Court Affairs at MaltaToday from 2014 to 2024...
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy including the use of cookies to enhance your experience.