Joseph Muscat tells court his human rights were breached in Vitals case
Former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat testified on Thursday in Constitutional proceedings in which he is claiming that his human rights were breached in the Vitals case.Muscat began by recalling that important decisions would be taken during weekly Cab
Former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat testified on Thursday in Constitutional proceedings in which he is claiming that his human rights were breached in the Vitals case.
Muscat began by recalling that important decisions would be taken during weekly Cabinet meetings, in which relevant memoranda of understanding would be presented and discussed. He said that the decision pertaining to the hospital concessions was tied to the need to modernise the hospitals.
He further testified that his name had not been mentioned in the magisterial inquiry regarding Vitals, and that he was unable to appeal the opening thereof.
He insisted that his name had only been mentioned long after the inquiry was opened, and namely after two articles were published by the Times of Malta.
Muscat repeatedly stated that he did not have the possibility to benefit from the safeguards to which all persons are entitled in similar proceedings. He also accused Magistrate Gabriella Vella of domineering the inquiry, with the Commissioner of Police 'leaving it in her hands'.
At this juncture, tensions between Muscat and lawyer James D'Agostino flared, with the latter complaining that Muscat had used certain adjectives to describe constitutional institutions. Muscat reminded D'Agostino that 'he was also addressing a former prime minister'.
When asked by lawyer Charlon Gouder about payments he had received from a company, Muscat alleged that notwithstanding that he had filed a note declaring his readiness to testify, he only received a response years later, and namely a few days after he had requested the recusal of Magistrate Vella.
Muscat made various arguments when asked about the institution of the proceedings at hand. He first made reference to a series of leaks which, according to him, were present from the very beginning, and perhaps even before the conception of the inquiry.
He also argued that notary Robert Aquilina was present for the entire raid which had taken place at his residence. He also indirectly mentioned Nationalist Party candidate Frank Tabone, noting that one of the officials entrusted with the case had since resigned and been accepted as a political party candidate.
The former prime minister also shed his doubts on various experts involved in the inquiry. He argued that court-appointed forensic accountant Miroslava Milenović does not even retain an accountancy warrant and is attempting to avoid testifying, and that the company of the expert who signed off the report was liquidated.
Reference was also made to relatives of the magistrate, with Muscat arguing that he had been described by her father as corrupt.
Lawyer Charlon Gouder proceeded to ask Muscat to describe the effects which the inquiry had on him, both from a personal and career-related standpoint. Muscat replied that apart from the fact that his assets were frozen, his family had also suffered great psychological damage. He added that many of his relatives were being subjected to psychological pressures despite having nothing to do with the matter at hand.
He said that the inquiry was intended to stultify any attempt he may have made to contest last year's European Parliament elections.
Muscat concluded that he ultimately seeks justice from the proceedings at hand. He argued that the magistrate did not take a step back despite comments from her relatives, and that his basic human rights were breached.
The case was adjourned to 27 February, where Muscat will face cross-examination.
Joseph Muscat was represented by lawyers Vince Galea, Charlon Gouder, Luke Dalli and Etienne Borg Ferranti.
Related
Share this page
Guest Posts by Easy Branches
