Court abstains from hearing Jason Azzopardi appeal over Clint Camilleri inquiry request due to new law

The amendment, which came into force on Friday removes the right of ordinary citizens to directly ask a magistrate for an inquiry

Lawyer Jason Azzopardi (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)
Lawyer Jason Azzopardi (Photo: James Bianchi/MaltaToday)

The court has abstained from hearing an appeal filed by lawyer Jason Azzopardi, who had requested a magisterial inquiry into Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri over alleged irregularities in the allocation of mooring spaces at the Mġarr Harbour.

On Tuesday, Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera ruled that the court could not proceed with the request due to the recently enacted magisterial inquiry reform.

The legal amendment, which came into force on Friday, removes the right of ordinary citizens to directly ask a magistrate for an inquiry. It also stymied pending inquiry requests. Instead, the individual will have to file a police report and only after six months have lapsed can the person seek recourse at the Criminal Court that will decide if a magisterial inquiry should be held. 

The new law also states that criminal courts must refrain from deciding any pending requests for such inquiries.

Azzopardi had filed an appeal after Magistrate Brigitte Sultana rejected his initial request for an inquiry. Two additional requests on separate issues were also denied by the same magistrate and are currently under appeal.

In the previous sitting, Azzopardi had also announced plans to file a constitutional case alleging a breach of his fundamental rights, should his ongoing appeals be turned down because of the new law. 

Azzopardi had previously alleged that the decree rejecting his request was authored by Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech and not Magistrate Brigitte Sultana. On 20 March, Azzopardi had formally requested that a technical expert be appointed to investigate the matter. He also requested the testimony of Assistant Registrar Margaret Debattista, to confirm the document’s authorship.

The court had appointed IT court expert Stephen Farrugia Sacco and allowed Debattista to testify.

Sacco explained that when documents are created, the person creating it is listed as the original author. If the document is later modified, then the person who modified it is listed as the author. The expert testified that his analysis concluded that it was indeed Margaret Debattista who was last to modify the respective decree.

Upon her testimony, Debattista confirmed that she received the decree from Magistrate Sultana and denied ever speaking to Magistrate Donatella Frendo  on the matter.

The court clarified that judges work in collaboration with others and affirmed that if a certain document was created by the Deputy, it does not mean that then the sentence was also created by them. In such cases, the “author” of the document is not the judge but the sentence is in fact written by the same judge.

Therefore, the court concluded that Azzopardi’s claims were unfounded and factually incorrect. Hence, they were dismissed.

Tensions escalate in the courtroom

During the sitting on Tuesday, Azzopardi accused the government of purposely introducing the legal reform to obstruct ongoing investigations. He argued that the new law was evidence that Camilleri is hiding something. 

Lawyers Stephen Tonna Lowell, Arthur Azzopardi, and Charles Mercieca agreed that under the new legal framework, the court has no jurisdiction to decide the appeals, just as Madam Justice Scerri Herrera had found in the earlier ruling.

Jason Azzopardi, however, contested their arguments and invoked the Interpretation Act, arguing that new legal amendments that remove a person’s rights must not affect ongoing proceedings. 

Yet Tonna Lowell countered Azzopardi’s arguments and explained that the new law expressly mandates that pending inquiries must be discontinued. Therefore, Azzopardi’s position was invalid, he argued.

The court is expected to rule on the two outstanding appeals in due course.

Camilleri was represented in proceedings by lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell.

Lawyer Charles Mercieca represented architect Godwin Agius, while lawyer Arthur Azzopardi represented Gozo Ministry Permanent Secretary John Borg. The latter two had also been mentioned as suspects in Jason Azzopardi's magisterial inquiry request.