A European Parliament debate regarding devolopments in the case of the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia may lead to prejudicing the ongoing murder case if it takes place now and not after Vince Muscat’s testimony is concluded, PL MEP Cyrus Engerer told The Malta Independent. 

The Labour Government has been under increased pressure in recent weeks, when a number of revelations in court relating to the case of Daphne Caruana Galizia emerged. Vince Muscat (Il- Koħħu) pleaded guilty, and started to give his testimony after being granted a presidential pardon to reveal more about the case and the case of the death of Carmel Chircop, where he implicated former Economy Minister Chris Cardona. 

Last week, Keith Schembri was among a number of people who were charged in court for corruption and money laundering and denied bail. He has now submitted a renewed attempt for bail, which is to be decided on Friday. 

Maltese MEPs have been at each other’s throats, accusing one another of damaging the country’s reputation abroad, especially in the European Parliament. 

Engerer gave his view on the European Parliament debate which will take place tomorrow at 2.30pm and look at the revelations which have come to the fore in the Caruana Galizia case in particular.

“From my part, debates about Malta do not bother me, actually, it would give us the opportunity to showcase the improvements we have made in terms of good governance under the rule of PM Robert Abela,” he said. 

“However, this particular debate seems to be dangerous because it is about a case that is being heard in court right now, and the person in question is still giving his testimony. We would be discussing what has come out now while the testimony has not yet finished.”  

He stated that there might be things which have yet to be revealed in court. ”First of all, I imagine a lot of things have yet to be revealed, so I prefer that if we have a debate it would be when the whole testimony is over and not bits of it,” he remarked.  

“Furthermore, there is the danger of prejudicing the case. Fundamental rights clearly state that a debate like this can prejudice a case that is ongoing in court. So this debate did not need to happen in this way, as if we want the truth to come out and for justice to be served, we need to let the institutions work, not obstruct them. This would lead to failure in our quest for truth and justice to take its course.” 

Although he said that he would have no problem with having the debate after the testimony is finished, he believes that everyone wants justice to be served. 

“All in all, I believe that all Maltese, including the politicians, want the truth and for justice to happen,” he said.