Pilatus Bank appeal: Azzopardi argues court demonstrated prejudice towards Robert Aquilina

Lawyer Jason Azzopardi argues court was more interested in conducting witch hunt against Robert Aquilina than reviewing facts, during oral submission in NGO Repubblika’s appeal to court ruling in which it said insufficient evidence was tabled for prosecution to be ordered against Pilatus Bank officials

Former Repubblika president Robert Aquilina (left) and the NGO’s lawyer Jason Azzopardi (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)
Former Repubblika president Robert Aquilina (left) and the NGO’s lawyer Jason Azzopardi (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)

The Courts demonstrated prejudice towards Robert Aquilina, with it being more concerned with conducting a witch hunt against him, lawyer Jason Azzopardi argued in court on Tuesday.

Oral submissions related to an appeal lodged by civil society NGO Repubblika following the rejection by a Magistrates Court on a request that Police Commissioner Angelo Gafa be ordered to institute criminal action against Pilatus Bank officials were heard by an Appeals Court on Tuesday morning.

Azzopardi continued by stating that although the judgment of the Court makes various references to hearsay, not one example was provided.

Repubblika had initiated challenge proceedings in 2022, requesting the courts to order that Pilatus Bank officials be prosecuted by the Police Commissioner following the conclusion of a magisterial inquiry which found evidence of crimes including money laundering.

The request, however, was turned down.

The Court had noted that a lot of speculation and hearsay resulted, inasmuch as the majority of Aquilina’s testimony in the given proceedings was based on what he was being told by various officials who were not indicated. It was held that the vague manner in which declarations were made by the witness meant that the Court was not presented with clear, direct, and unequivocal proof. Facts which were being presented were based on what Aquilina had heard from the media, or on sources which, according to the Court, were not subject to control and could be subject to selective interpretation.

It had also been noted, amongst other things, that the claims put forward in the application regarding offences contemplated by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act could not be decided upon by the Court in terms of the law on challenge proceedings.

In the same judgment, it was also ordered that a copy of all witness testimony and evidence exhibited during the proceedings be sent to the Police Commissioner to immediately institute an investigation into how direct physical access to the inquiry was provided to third parties, including Aquilina who had stated variously that the inquiry was shown to him in its original state and that he had no legal authority to do so at the time.

Repubblika swiftly slammed the Court ruling, with Notary Robert Aquilina stating that an appeal would be lodged and that “we can never agree with a ruling that allows the Police Commissioner to disobey the order of another magistrate”.

Oral submissions following the lodging of the appeal were made by the parties in a one-hour sitting held this morning.

Lawyer Jason Azzopardi, appearing for the NGO, initially made reference to the facts giving rise to the case at hand. He briefly stated that a magisterial inquiry was concluded in 2021, with a ‘noticia criminis’ being lodged in January 2022. No response by the Commissioner of Police was provided, with a reminder being sent a few months later. Inasmuch as no feedback was given, the challenge application was filed in 2022.

Extensive references to various grounds of appeal were then made, with Azzopardi firstly stating that the Court reached the conclusion that insufficient evidence to prove a prima facie case was put forward notwithstanding the fact that Repubblika had in its favour the conclusions of the magisterial inquiry pertaining to the operation of Pilatus Bank.

Lawyer Ramon Bonnett Sladden from the Office of the Attorney General put forward a number of counter-arguments, stating, amongst other things, that the Commissioner of Police could never accede to that which was requested in the challenge proceedings inasmuch as the offence of money laundering may only be prosecuted by the Attorney General.