Rita Schembri should have stood in the dock, not Joseph Borg - defence

A man facing charges of blackmailing and defaming the head of the OPM's Internal Audit and Investigations Department defended his right to send Rita Schembri a letter that called on her to "redeem" herself and pay outstanding commercial dues to third parties who had subleased his restaurant from Schembri, the lessee.

Lawyer Edward Debono, appearing for Joseph Borg, 75, told the court today that it should have been Schembri - who has temporarily stepped down from her post as IAID head - who should be standing in the dock. "This is a court of freedom, and I feel it has been violated in this case. The most atrocious charge of all was to charge Borg with defamation. She has so much to answer before the law, and I don't blame her for having suspended herself," he said

Debono, closing his submissions before Magistrate Anthony Vella, said it was his client's civiv duty to write to Schembri after she defrauded him by illegally subletting his property to two other people, and warning her that he would report her to the EU's anti-fraud agency OLAF, on whose supervisory board she sits.

"Her position as a senior civil servant and also as a senior official who sits on the EU's anti-fraud agency's supervisory body OLAF, had to be put into question," Debono said, insisting that his client did what any upstanding citizen should have done. "My client was wrongly charged and without putting any onus on the police, and from what emerged from this case, it was clear that there was a hidden hand to have him charged," he stressed.

Debono added that Borg was even sent to prison for five days when a court - presided by Magistrate Consuelo Herrera - refused him bail. "Someone, somewhere put pressure on the Attorney General," Debono said.

But Magistrate Vella immediately interrupted him, asking him to stay away from conjectures and assumptions, and to stick to the merits of the case.

Debono said that he was surprised to see the police charge his client with blackmail, when no evidence was even produced showing Borg asking for some sum of money in return. He said that for blackmail to be proven, one must show evidence of intent to gain, and this was not the case because Borg had asked Schembri to redeem herself regarding a fraud she committed against third parties and not for himself.

"We have before us a whistleblower. A man who felt that a very senior public official had committed fraud to the detriment of two people," the lawyer said, adding that all Borg said in the email was: 'if you do not redeem yourself, I will report you to OLAF'. "God forbid that the Police or government expect a senior civil servant who committed such fraud be allowed to occupy such a position, and allow her to continue with her job?" he said.

Police submissions

Police Inspector Chris Pullicino argued that the case revolves around a report filed by Rita Schembri last November, who was alerted by her subordinate that she had received an email from the accused.

Pullicino stressed that the email had in fact requested Schembri to pay money to third parties, or else he would have reported her to OLAF. The prosecutor said that it was Magistrate Miriam Hayman who had authorised the police to execute an arrest warrant against Borg, who was to be investigated for blackmail. Borg was subsequently charged.

Pullicino insisted that the prosecution has proved Borg committed blackmail, and this was proven with what the accused wrote on his email to Schembri. He contested the fact that Borg was proclaming himself as a whistleblower, insisting that it was wrong of Borg to threaten Schembri to report her unless she didn't do what he wanted her to do.

"With all due respect to whistleblowers, this is not whistle-blowing, but blackmail," Pullicino said, adding that from evidence produced, it transpired that Borg had already made contact with OLAF, and put further pressure on the government official by showing her what he was doing. "If Schembri had heeded Borg's request and paid out the money, what would Borg have done?" he asked, adding that when asked about it, Borg had said that he would have stopped his actions.

Pullicino argued that from Borg's reply, it was clear that he was divesting himself of his citizens duty to report Schembri for the alleged wrongdoing, and bury the whole issue, soley because he would have managed to get his way.

Pullicino stressed that with regards to sentencing, he was asking for what was "idonea" and within the parameters of the law.

Sentencing is due on March 21.