A sitting of the Public Accounts Committee during which former OPM chief of Staff Keith Schembri was to testify ended abruptly on Tuesday as Schembri refused to answer questions until a decision is taken by a constitutional court on a case he is still to file.

Schembri, who was former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat's chief of staff, appeared before the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) for the third time during its examination of the Auditor General's report relating to the contracts awarded to Electrogas by the Enemalta Corporation.

At the beginning of the sitting, Schembri's lawyers demanded that the Speaker of the House of Representatives gives a ruling on the request for a police investigation which the Nationalist Party's members on the PAC asked for last week following Schembri's earlier testimony.

The PN members asked the police to investigate Finance Minister Edward Scicluna, Schembri and assistant commissioner Silvio Valletta. The issue, according to the PN, is alleged false testimony before the PAC and the public inquiry into the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia about the contract awarded to Electrogas for the gas power station. The PN said that on the basis of the evidence given, one from among Scicluna, Schembri and Valletta had not told the truth. 

When Schembri turned up for today's sitting, his third, his lawyer Edward Gatt made request for a ruling from the Speaker of the House on the matter. But it is only members of the committee who can demand a ruling from a Speaker.

Following this, Schembri's laywers asked whether any one of the seven members was prepared to take on Schembri's request, but none of them did.

In view of this, Schembri's lawyer Edward Gatt said that a constitutional case will be filed and that Schembri will not be answering any questions until that case is decided.

PAC chairman Darren Carabott asked one question to Schembri, and he chose not to answer pending the outcome of the court case which Schembri said will be filed in the next two days. Carabott reminded the witness that a former ruling given by the Speaker laid down that witnesses could choose not to reply only if they were facing a risk of incriminating themselves. Schembri replied that he was not answering until the Constitutional Court decided on the matter.

During a parliamentary sitting later, Carabott asked the PN MP David Agius, serving as Deputy Speaker of the House in Anglu Farrugia’s absence, for guidance on how to move forward considering Schembri chose not to respond, even though the guidelines make it clear that a witness can only choose not to respond to prevent incriminating themselves.

Agius said that a ruling will be given at a later stage.

15:02 Committee hearing has been adjourned, pending a ruling from the Speaker on the refusal by Schembri to answer the PAC questions.

15:01 Carabott said he will request the Speaker’s guidance on Schembri’s refusal to answer. 

15:00 Carabott tells Schembri that the only instance in which he cannot answer the PAC’s questions is if he risks incriminating himself. Schembri however sticks to the decision not to answer until a constitution court decides on the matter.

14:59 Carabott decides to go ahead with questions... His first question was how Schembri knew that the Egrant company had not been used. Schembri says he will not answer and a constitutional case will be filed in the next two days.

14.58 Schembri will take the matter before the Constitutional Court to challenge the PAC for a suspension pending the perjury investigation by the police. Gatt said that the PAC chairman should not act as the gatekeeper to the Speaker.

14.55 Gatt says that now their advice to their client is not to reply to questions. Gatt says that the matter will be taken before the constitutional court. He was referring the PN MPs' request for the police to investigate perjury allegations.

14.53 Carabott asks whether any of the members wants to make his own Schembri's request, via his lawyer. Nobody wants to do so.

14.53 Sitting resumes.

14.43 The sitting is suspended again as the committee members decide, behind closed doors.

14.42 MP Glenn Bedingfield requested a suspension of the hearing for the committee to decide on the way forward.

14:41 It is clear Gatt is seeking the support of Labour MPs on the committee.

14:41 Seeing this, Schembri’s lawyer Edward Gatt made a new request: he asked the MPs present whether one of them or the PAC want to make this request.

14:40 PAC chairman Darren Carabott cites Rule 62 which says that only a committee member can make a request for a ruling by the Speaker. 

14:39 The committee is now back in session.

14.21 Carabott has suspended the committee hearing, to consult the Standing Orders. He thinks only members of the PAC can make such a request. Schembri and his lawyers walk out but remain in the Parliament building.

14:20 Gatt verbalised his request for a ruling from the Speaker of the House on the matter, which will buy time for Keith Schembri if the testimony is suspended due to an ongoing police investigation into the PN report. This could lead to a substantial delay in the proceedings.

14:19 Carabott says the criminal report filed by the PN representatives concerns claims in the PAC by Schembri, suggesting a conflict in the version of events as relayed to the inquiry as well as the PAC, by former finance minister Edward Scicluna and former deputy police commissioner Silvio Valletta. Scicluna had told the Daphne Caruana Galizia inquiry that there was a 'kitchen cabinet' that made decisions on big projects. Last week Schembri said this was not the case.

14:18 Gatt said he was requesting a ruling by the Speaker on suspending the testimony of Schembri, pending the outcome of the police investigation.

14:17 The report was filed by Carabott and the two Opposition members of the PAC. Carabott says that the action was not taken by the committee, but by the three representatives of the PN.

14:16 Keith Schembri lawyer Edward Gatt requested PAC chairman Darren Carabott to give details about the PN representatives’ request to the police, last week, to investigate what Schembri said during last week’s sitting.