Businessman Hugo Chetcuti this morning reacted to the report compiled by retired Judge Michael Mallia and insisted that the judge’s insinuations were “out of place, baseless, gratuitous and defamatory.”

Judge Mallia was appointed by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat to investigate former Police Inspector Daniel Zammit’s involvement in the investigation of the murder of Neville Baldacchino.

The report found that former inspector Daniel Zammit did not behave ethically and in conformity with the procedures which regulated his position during the murder investigation of Neville Baldacchino. Judge Mallia also found that the behaviour of Mr Zammit’s brother Roderick, a serving police inspector, and his father Ray, a former acting Police Commissioner and later deputy commissioner until he retired in May, was improper.

In a statement signed by lawyer Peter Fenech, Mr Chetcuti said he had not taken part in the inquiry, had not given evidence and was not summoned by the Judge. He was also not asked for his police record and the report does not indicate that there is any particular allegation against him that merits investigation.  The entries in Mr Chetcuti’s police record were related to loud music and other issues related to his ownership of his Paceville establishments.

Mr Chetcuti said the birthday party held for Roderick Zammit was held in his private property, not at one of his establishments, and no one asks for an entry fee when organizing a party at his own house. All expenses for the party were paid for by Daniel Zammit.

Mr Chetcuti said he reserved his right to sue for libel. 

In his report, the retired judge referred to Mr Chetcuti as “a dubious character” with a “lengthy police record” filled with entries on his “continuous and regular breach of regulations related to his entertainement establishments.”

Daniel and Roderick Zerafa claimed they knew Mr Chetcuti on a casual “hello and bye” basis but in reality there was “a deeper friendship” between them. Daniel Zammit even organised his brother’s birthday party at Mr Chetcuti’s villa. “It was not prudent for the two inspectors to be seen in the regular company of Ugo Chetcuti,” the former judge commented.

Later on the report says that, even if they did not pay anything for hosting the event, they would still have pecuniary obligations towards Mr Chetcuti.