[LIVE] Frank Sammut's lawyer expresses intention to contest Speaker's ruling

Welcome to MaltaToday's live blog of the PAC hearing into the Auditor General's audit of Enemalta's fuel procurement policy

EXPLAINER | Auditor General's report on Enemalta fuel procurement

This live-blog has ended.

7:25pmThe PAC has been adjourned to 19 February at 6:30pm with the same agenda, that is Frank Sammut's hearing. If new developments occur - like a court decision on the Speaker's ruling - the PAC will regulate itself accordingly.

7:10pm The meeting has been suspended for the MPs to deliberate.

6:50pm On his part, parliamentary secretary for justice Owen Bonnici said the right for silence was important. On the matter whether a Speaker's ruling could be raised in Court, Bonnici referred to a case of the constitutional court Mintoff vs Borg Olivier on whether Court could rule on parliamentary work. The caselaw said it was important that procedures and formalities are strictly adhered to.

He pointed out that the Court so far had never had the opportunity to decide on the issue being raised by Sammut's lawyer. Bonnici also pointed out that the status of parliament was born out of the constitution and the constitution exists because there is parliament and vice-versa. He also said that parliament was the first institution which the constitution referred to.

He went on to propose a suspension of the sitting to deliberate on a way forward, noting that the matter raised also concerned an individual's fundamental human right.

Agreeing that this situation was the first of its kind, Giglio however made it clear that he would not accept a situation where questions are referred to the Speaker. He also reiterated he wanted to contest the ruling in court.

6:48pm Sammut is assisted by his lawyer Joe Giglio. Before Sammut takes his oath, Giglio intervenes to point out that his client is currently facing procedures in court. Acknowledging the Speaker's ruling, Giglio says he, as the lawyer, was not bound by this ruling. He says that while Sammut could choose not to answer those questions which might incriminate him, yet it was not the Speaker's remit to decide what sort of question

"What incriminates him and what not, could lead to disagreements. I know the Speaker has ruled that where we disagree on questions we go back to Speaker and he gives the ruling. But, no more than me, understand what an incriminating question could be especially since the compilation of evidence is still ongoing," Giglio said.

Warning that he was ready to contest the Speaker's ruling in court, Giglio said the Speaker was neither above the Constitution nor above the Convention of Human Rights. He said that Speaker's ruling was handed in light of the committee regulations.

"My client has the right to absolute silence. If you propose a situation where questions we disagree on are referred to the Speaker, then I will contest the ruling in own choice of fora, that is court. I ask for the opportunity to contest the ruling and see what the court says, which at the end of the day is above the Speaker, a court which safeguards the Constitution."

6:41pm Good evening and welcome to this evening's live-blog from the Public Accounts Committee. Today's witness is Frank Sammut, former Enemalta consultant to Tancred Tabone, former chief executive of the Malta Oil Bunkering Corporation and allegedly received thousands of dollars in kickbacks from Dutch commodities firm Trafigura for oil consignments to Enemalta. (MOBC). Sammut was also a former silent partner in Island Bunker Oils Ltd (IBOL)