Vitals expert refusing to testify in proceedings ordered to present original affidavit

A court has ordered that Jeremy Harbinson, a forensic accountant who oversaw the Vitals inquiry, present an original copy of an affidavit in which he declared that he "will never return to Malta" owing to safety concerns. 

This comes after Harbinson sent the courts an affidavit via email in which he declared that the insights he has gained over the past seven years means that he will not return to Malta because he fears for his safety. 

Harbinson, a retired forensic accountant, noted that the report made no mention of criminal charges or freezing orders, and that from his long experience of criminal investigations in the United Kingdom, he expected that, if criminal proceedings were to result from the inquiry, the professional experts would be consulted by police and prosecutors about any such proceedings and that this work would be the subject of a separate commercial contract.

He also said the report had clearly indicated that it was not to be shared with third parties without due permission. 

The report had been used as the sole basis for prosecuting former prime minister Joseph Muscat, former chief of staff Keith Schembri and former minister Konrad Mizzi.

During a sitting held on Wednesday morning, defence lawyer Stefano Filletti said the report is amongst the sources upon which the prosecution had based their request for the issuance of freezing orders. 

Defence lawyer Edward Gatt argued similarly. "Everyone is in disbelief at these obscenities," he said.

Defence lawyer Vincent Galea further informed the court that the defence was insisting that Harbinson would be heard before Miroslava Milenovic, another forensic accountant appointed by the Court. He noted that Milenovic had stated that some of her conclusions were based upon considerations made by Harbinson. 

Harbinson was ordered to present the original affidavit. The Court, presided over by Madam Justice Edwina Grima, noted that the report formed part of the evidence and that he could hence be called to testify to confirm the report. 

The defence reserved the right to accept the admissibility of the affidavit as evidence. 

The case was adjourned to 27 February.