Court confirms State Advocate's power to recover funds in fraudulent hospitals deal

A court has ruled the State Advocate has the power to act against those responsible for the fraudulent hospitals concession, following the Nationalist Party’s appeal.

The Nationalist Party has welcomed the Court of Appeal’s decision that the State Advocate is responsible for seeking the return of public funds lost in the corrupt hospitals deal.

Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti declared the State Advocate’s obligation to act, ruling in favour of the Nationalist Party.

In a previous proceeding, the Nationalist Party argued that the State Advocate must act in the public interest and ensure Malta recoups the €400 million paid to the hospitals concession. 

The argument was put forward by lawyers representing the Nationalist Party (PN) in its appeal following a court ruling that denied its request for the State Advocate to seek the return of €400 million paid by the government in the Vitals hospitals’ deal.

State Advocate Chris Soler, on the other hand, defended his actions, saying it is in the interest of the state that he follows the law.

“If the law says that the State Advocate may or may not do something, then it would be against the public interest that the State Advocate does not follow the law and assumes power whenever she wants,” Soler said in court.

During the proceeding on Monday, the Court presided by Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, and Judges Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul declared that “the State Advocate does have that power, and has the duty to react”.

Present for proceedings on Monday were Prime Minister Robert Abela, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, Opposition leader Bernard Grech and Nationalist Party Secretary General Michael Piccinino.

In a press conference after the proceeding, Bernard Grech, leader of the Nationalist Party, said: “Today, the Court of Appeal said that the State Advocate can take action against those responsible for stealing our money in order to get our money back.”

Government: ‘Opposition leader rushed to claim victory’

In a statement reacting to the court decision, the government insisted the Court of Appeal rejected most of the claims made by the Leader of the Opposition.

Specifically, it dismissed his request for the Court to interpret its previous ruling from October 23, 2023 as giving the State Advocate a mandate to act against third parties in matters related to hospital concessions.

The Court clarified that the State Advocate, like Members of Parliament, can only act within the narrow scope defined by the Government Lands Act. This means the State Advocate does not have general authority to initiate further legal actions unless explicitly authorised by law.

The government, through the State Advocate, has already initiated international arbitration proceedings months ago to protect the country’s interests. This includes regaining control of the hospitals before the final court decision.

The Court denied the Opposition’s claim that the State Advocate should act autonomously without government direction. It said that the State Advocate needs specific legal authority for such independence.

The government criticised the Opposition Leader for “rushing to claim victory without even analysing what the Court actually said”. The government interpreted the Court’s call for prudence as advice to avoid undermining ongoing international arbitration with politically motivated legal actions.