Judge rules against Joseph Muscat’s attempt to ‘move goalposts’ in human rights case

A judge has turned down Joseph Muscat’s request to include a new request in the human rights case he filed in relation to the Vitals-Steward magisterial inquiry.

Judge Doreen Clarke ruled on Monday that the former prime minister’s attempt to introduce a fresh request was tantamount to “starting a new case”.

Citing case law, the judge said the law does allow changes to be made to original requests and court documents, however, this is intended to amend mistakes and not to change the merits of the case.

She said the new request Muscat wanted to introduce was not a simple change but one that shifted the goalposts of the original course of action.

“In truth, what the plaintiff is trying to do is not to correct a mistake but to start a new case, with completely different consequences and requests, within a case that has already started,” the judge ruled.

She went on to deny Muscat’s request and ordered him to pay expenses.

The case, which will continue, was filed by Muscat last year against the State Advocate. Muscat is claiming a breach of his human rights as a result of the ongoing magisterial inquiry into the hospitals privatisation deal. The inquiry was initiated in 2019 on Repubblika’s initiative. The inquiry originally targeted former ministers Chris Cardona, Konrad Mizzi and Edward Scicluna but later widened to include Muscat.

Muscat had tried to remove the magistrate from the inquiry, insisting she had a conflict because her relatives were publicly critical of him. He also complained of constant leaks from the inquiry and decried the magistrate’s refusal to let him testify before her.

In January 2022, as part of the inquiry, police officers searched Muscat’s Burmarrad home and ceased several electronic devices.

Meanwhile, shortly after the judge’s ruling on Monday, Muscat took to Facebook, claiming the court’s decision “undermines” fundamental rights.

“My request was to add on to an original request to the Court after the emergence of new facts. This was acknowledged by the Court itself in its decree. The request was not going to change the substance of the case, but it was simply to ensure that the Court would be in the best position to make an informed decision. The Court did not accept this request,” Muscat wrote.

He disagreed with the ruling, adding he was being treated differently to anyone else, ostensibly referring to his own inclusion as a subject of interest to the inquiry after it had started.

“I will see how and what the best way is for me to defend my rights, both in Malta and if necessary abroad. Those who think I will be disheartened truly do not know me,” Muscat concluded.