Brian Tonna remains tight-lipped on Electrogas during PAC meeting

"I choose not to reply," was repeated on loop by the former Nexia BT partner

Former Nexia BT partner Brian Tonna appears before the PAC
Former Nexia BT partner Brian Tonna appears before the PAC

Nexia BT managing partner Brian Tonna chose not to answer any questions put forward by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) in parliament

On the basis of one's right to silence, and with the aid of his lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell, Brian Tonna refused to answer questions regarding the infamous Electrogas contract that is currently being reviewed by the PAC.

Tonna Lowell added that his client was questioned over Electrogas during a separate magisterial inquiry, and due to ongoing proceedings against him he wished to exercise his right to silence, citing a particular court sentence for argument. 

The Public Accounts Committee
The Public Accounts Committee

Whenever a question was put forward to Tonna, he would reply with "I choose not to respond".

Nationalist MP Karol Aquilina attempted to suss out answers from Tonna on his relationships with Joseph Muscat, Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi.

The MP went on to ask about Tonna's role in Electrogas and at the Office of the Prime Minister, raising a question relating to his office within OPM.

Tonna was further asked about Cheng Chen, the Chinese negotiator in multi-million euro deals by Enemalta, and Labour Party energy consultant David Galea, who was brought to the witness stand in previous PAC meetings to testify on Electrogas.

Aquilina playfully asked where he went to school, to which Tonna replied "I choose not to respond".

Nationalist MP Ryan Callus prodded him further on potential links between Egrant and Electrogas, and went on to ask if there's any relationship between Egrant and Macbridge.

Tonna was asked why he's choosing not to respond. He said that this was on the advice of his lawyer, and that he doesn't know why he has to keep repeating himself.

The committee eventually resolved to request the Speaker of the House to deliver a ruling on the matter, to understand whether the witness can refuse to answer all questions put forward to it.

This marked the suspension of the committee until a ruling is delivered.