Repubblika mistaken in claiming 'injured party' status in criminal case, Muscat lawyers say

Lawyers acting on behalf of Joseph Muscat have objected to Repubblika’s request to be admitted as the injured party in the criminal case against him.

The NGO, which was set up following the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in 2017, and which has been campaigning against corruption ever since, filed an application on 13 May, requesting that it be admitted to the proceedings as the injured party.

But in a reply filed on Thursday, Muscat's lawyers Vincent Galea, Ishmael Psaila, Charlon Gouder, Etienne Borg Ferranti and Dominic Micallef, argued that Repubblika was wrong when it claimed to be the injured party who triggered the magisterial inquiry in 2019.

“Why is it being said that Repubblika is mistaken when it says that it had been the injured party that initiated the magisterial inquiry? Because a magisterial inquiry is not begun by the injured party,” argued the lawyers. The relevant section of the Criminal Code does not speak of injured parties, but of “a person who is not the Attorney General or a police officer. The word used by the law is “a person” not “offended party,” as Repubblika is trying to imply.”

It was pointed out that similar requests by Repubblika had been rejected in Constitutional Court decisions from 2018, in Simon Busuttil’s case against the Attorney General, and May 2023, in a case filed by Repubblika against the State Advocate, as well as a First Hall (Constitutional Jurisdiction) case by Muscat against the State Advocate decided in July 2023.

In order for Repubblika, or any other person, to be admitted as the injured party in the Criminal Law sphere, they must show that it had suffered damages as a result of the crimes with which the defendants are charged and that it was the victim of the crime.

The fact that Repubblika had filed a number of applications in the acts of the inquiry, to bring information to the attention of the inquiring magistrate made it an interested party, but not an injured party. 

Even if it were to argue that the State was a victim, the State is already represented in the proceedings by the State Advocate, and the NGO “should not usurp the functions of the State and assign them to itself,” argued the lawyers.

In addition, the law only allowed individuals and not organisations to be admitted as an injured party in criminal proceedings. 

Neither did Repubblika satisfy the criteria for victimhood under the Victims of Crime Act, argued the lawyers, describing the NGO’s court application as “simply an attempt to give rise to a different interpretation to that which is clearly stated in [the law]....with the aim of being admitted as the injured party in these proceedings when clearly it is not meant to be.”

Repubblika honorary president Robert Aquilina said in a reaction that through the NGO’s lawyer Jason Azzopardi, two official letters were sent to Joseph Muscat and his “friends” informing them they intend to recover the funds “stolen from the Maltese and Gozitans.”

“Perhaps Muscat does not know or does not remember that around this time five years ago, his accomplices Konrad Mizzi, Chris Cardona, and Edward Scicluna had brought up the same argument they made today, and the Courts had said it made no sense and therefore rejected it,” the Aquilina said on Facebook.