I write with reference to the various news reports and press releases referred to in local media over the last few days, including the reference by the leader of the Opposition, Joseph Muscat, during his Sunday address in Msida regarding my client, Dr Robert Cuschieri, and his application for the post of consultant hepato pancreto biliary surgery. The fact that my client happens to be the son-in-law of Minister Dolores Cristina does not render him a second-class citizen without right. Public calls are available to him too.

Following various misconceptions which may have been created by inaccuracies as well as unfounded allegations circulated, I am directed by my client to set the record straight and provide the public with the facts of the case.

My client answered a public call published in the Government Gazette in July 2010 in accordance with the criteria therein published. Following a selection process, he was recommended for such post following his having placed first in the exam and interview carried out by the Public Service Commission.

There are five persons who originally applied for such post – one of whom did not attend the interview, another two failed the interview, another who placed second and my client who placed first. My client’s application was filed in accordance with the call published in the Government Gazette of July 2010, which requested that all candidates have two years’ experience as a full-time specialist in general surgery since 2007. Any allegation that he was not eligible for such a post is factually incorrect. He placed first on meritocracy alone and any allegations to the contrary are defamatory.

For the record, it is appropriate to point out the MAM had approved the call before it was published in the Government Gazette inclusive of all its conditions.

Evidently, the persons who did not place first are now applying pressure at all levels, including the court and with the media to overturn the recommendation, and to orchestrate that the position is not given to the best person available but to the second best or worse.

Following pressure exerted by those who were not nominated for the post, an issue arose regarding the interpretation of the term ‘specialist’, which term exists as ‘resident specialist’ in local government hospitals.

The issue cited by those who either failed the interview or placed after my client was that there was a restriction on my client being called a specialist under the Health Care Professions Act. The definition of ‘specialist’ in the HCPA provides that “no person shall practice or hold himself out to be a specialist unless his name is entered in the respective register kept for the registration of specialists by the relevant council”. Dr Cuschieri applied according to the call and its conditions (having worked as a resident specialist in general surgery for three years) and thus his application was made according to the call and fully satisfied all the conditions.

This is further substantiated by the fact that any interpretation to the contrary would in practice mean that, although being given the title of resident specialists according to the government-MAM agreement, the resident specialists employed in government hospitals are not necessarily specialists, a result I am sure everybody, from the general public to the Health Minister and all medical professionals would categorically deny.

Following the pressure exerted by the persons who failed to be nominated for the post, the Public Service Commission has given its own interpretation of the law, in practice ousting Dr Cuschieri from the selection process. This position was not accepted by my client, who resorted to the civil courts for a warrant of prohibitory injunction to be issued.

These are the facts of the case and any attempt to distort same is petty and unprofessional.

■ Peter Fenech LL.D MA (Sussex)

Valletta