Auditor General Charles Deguara told a court on Monday that Chris Fearne and Edward Scicluna, together with his then permanent secretary Alfred Camilleri, had displayed no shortcomings on the hospitals deal.

For a second sitting, Deguara - whose National Audit Office had penned three reports looking into the hospitals deal - was the most significant witness of the day.

He testified as the courts approach reaching a prima facie decision on whether there is enough evidence for Fearne, Scicluna, Camilleri, and a host of others to stand trial in connection with charges over the now-cancelled hospitals deal.

Lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell, representing Fearne and Scicluna, quoted several extracts from the reports where the NAO stated that it was of "grave concern" that the Health Ministry had been sidelined in the concession.

"The fact that for a health project, the Health Ministry was practically not involved," Deguara said when asked what the NAO saw wrong in the process. "How can you go into an enormous health project like this, and the Health Minister is practically not involved? It's not just a concern, the process couldn't work because there was no expert input on their part," Deguara continued.

The Auditor General said that there was "strong cooperation" from Fearne and from the rest of the ministry, including then Permanent Secretary Joseph Rapa (another of the accused in this case), with the NAO.

"So Minister Fearne was sidelined but he and his ministry cooperated fully with you anyway," Tonna Lowell suggested. "Yes, yes," Deguara replied.

The questioning continued, this time with a focus on Scicluna: "Do you confirm that the Finance Ministry always behaved in an impeccable way?," Tonna Lowell asked.

"Yes, we were always given the documentation we needed and the necessary cooperation," Deguara said. He was asked whether the NAO had found anything on then-Finance Minister Edward Scicluna.

"We found nothing - not on Minister Scicluna and neither on his Permanent Secretary [Alfred Camilleri]," Deguara said.

He confirmed meanwhile, in response to lawyer Michael Sciriha, that Bradley Gatt - another of the accused- was not mentioned at any point in the NAO's reports and that DF Advocates had only been mentioned in the NAO's report as a "state of fact" since they were Vitals' legal counsel.

A line of questioning from lawyer Ezekiel Psaila, representing Manuel Castagna, was made on the basis of the NAO's opinion that it was a shortcoming that no due diligence had been done on the tender bidders.

Psaila questioned whether there was any formal guideline which stipulates that an evaluation committee must carry out due diligence, but Deguara contended that while there is no formal guideline, "this was the biggest tender ever given" and the NAO felt that the government should do due diligence to see who they are doing business with on a tender like this.

"That's what we are saying; that there should have been some decent due diligence on Vitals... had it been done, the deal probably wouldn't have happened," Deguara said before the court cuts him short.

Lawyer Gianella De Marco, representing Aron Mifsud Bonnici, also asked whether there are any guidelines for due diligence to be done at the RfP stage. "Not guidelines, but it's considered as best practice," Deguara said.

"If we aren't going to accept the principle of proper due diligence on people and of good governance in a contract where the government is going to pay many millions... then I don't know," Deguara lamented, as Psaila continued to question him.

"We are guardians of the public purse... that's our job.  When I emphasised the due diligence aspect it's because we have this duty," the Auditor General said when being cross-examined by lead prosecutor Francesco Refalo.

Antoine Cremona, a partner at Ganado Advocates, testified later and was asked about the Auditor General saying that his law firm had not replied to questions from the NAO.

Cremona said that Ganado Advocates had not been contacted at any point by the NAO. "What worries me is that the Auditor General uses the plural - that he tried to contact us more than once - but we never received any communication," Cremona said.

His testimony focused on the law firm's involvement in the Request for Proposals (RfP) issued by the government for the concession.

He testified that his main point of contact with the adjudication committee was lawyer Aron Mifsud Bonnici - one of the accused - and continued that he had been told of the Memorandum of Understanding signed between the government and the people behind Vitals Global Healthcare before the RfP was drafted.

The MoU was non-binding, Cremona said.  Ganado Advocates did not participate in the MoU, but they knew about it and had given advice on how the concession process should continue - that the concession shouldn't be a property concession but a public service concession.

Mifsud Bonnici, Cremona continued, had followed the legal advice that they had given when it came to drafting the RfP. 

Cremona said that Ganado Advocates was also engaged to assist in the drafting of the RfP itself, and said that the law firm had written "substantial" parts of it - the parts which a lawyer would usually write.

The government then made a call for offers and the law firm was not involved again for another couple of months, when Mifsud Bonnici asked the law firm's assistance in drafting the legal parts of the concession agreement, Cremona said.

There was pressure to get the matter done quickly, Cremona said, largely coming from David Galea, of BEAT Ltd, and the auditing firm RSM through George Gregory.

Cremona said that there was a list of items which they felt should not have been in the contract. "There was a disagreement, and we discussed and sent an email insisting that four things should not be included," he said.

"Little did we know that the email where we insisted that some things had to be drafted differently was the last email communication we had... Nobody answered anything else," he continued.

In another testimony, Edward Scicluna's former chief of staff Paul Debattista was subjected to a grilling by lawyer Franco Debono over an email exchange between the two - the subject of which was the Finance Ministry's Permanent Secretary Alfred Camilleri being part of the Projects Malta board.

"Yes that is why I sent you an email on it. He is either dumb by accepting to be on a board when he is not informed on what is happening or he was getting paid and thus he closed an eye or else he knew what was happening and he did not say anything to anybody," is what Debattista had written in reply to Scicluna's inquiries on whether he knew that Camilleri had been part of the said board, according to the magisterial inquiry.

The implication that 'he was getting paid' is referring to the possibility that he was getting paid to be a part of the board, Debattista explained - something he didn't know for certain.

But the bulk of Debono's questioning revolved around another email, where Debattista told the then-Minister that Camilleri "should have been more careful" with his wording in regards to the concession or that "he did it on purpose."

Debattista said that this was about a story which appeared in the media at the time, and said that he didn't know - even then, in July 2020 - that the concession had Cabinet's approval.  Debono questioned Debattista as to whether that in itself was "negligence" on his part, but the former chief of staff denied, simply saying that he was expressing his opinion in a private email exchange.

Debono implied that Camilleri had only been charged because of this email. "It's an un-informed opinion because you didn't know what was happening," the lawyer pointed out, to which Debattista agreed.

The lawyer accused Debattista of making haphazard accusations, but Debattista said that he was merely drawing assumptions based on Camilleri's own replies.

Cabinet Secretary Ryan Spagnol also testified, and was asked to confirm a range of memoranda from Cabinet with the first being from June 2015 which contained the information first given by Konrad Mizzi to Cabinet and the last being from May 2023 when the concession was terminated by Chris Fearne.

He confirmed that the decision in June 2015 for the concession to be handed to Vitals Global Healthcare on the basis of the recommendation by the adjudication committee was made by Cabinet.

Financial Crimes Department Superintendent David Grech meanwhile testified on the international stories that had alleged that Fearne had taken a bribe in relation to a Russian passport-buyer.  Grech said that the police carried out financial investigations on Fearne and his daughter but found no evidence of wrongdoing, and the MP was subsequently officially cleared.

Former police sergeant Shaun Spiteri, Louis Buhagiar from JobsPlus, an assistant to the clerk of Parliament, Times of Malta Editor-in-Chief Herman Grech, The Malta Independent newspaper editor Kevin Schembri Orland, and Civil Court Registrar Vanessa Grech also briefly testified during Monday's sitting.

The case continues on Wednesday.

13:58: That brings today's sitting to an end - we will be back on Wednesday.  Thank you for following!

13:56: The Registrar of the Civil Court, Vanessa Grech, is next to testify.

Tonna Lowell is asking for a copy of a particular email between Keith Schembri and Steward’s Armin Ernst, but the registrar needs court permission in order to provide it.  Tonna Lowell ultimately shows her a copy of the said email and she confirms that it is identical, and it is exhibited.

She was the final witness of the day.

13:52: The Malta Independent editor Kevin Schembri Orland is up next.  He confirms that another two articles, presented by Tonna Lowell, were written and published by the newspaper, and steps off the witness stand.

13:50: Tonna Lowell passes an article published by the Times of Malta to Grech and asks him about it.

It is an article from a Times of Malta investigation in conjunction with the organisation OCCRP. The article is titled: ‘Revealed: Steward funded smear campaign against Chris Fearne’ and was published on 1 July.

Greh confirms the veracity of the article and it is presented into the case.  He steps off the stand.

13:46: Cremona’s testimony ends there.  Times of Malta editor in chief Herman Grech is up next.

13:41: Psaila is up next, and he asks about why the law firm did not reply to the NAO’s questions.

Cremona says he has been waiting for four years to reply to this. Both in July 2020 when that report was issued, he says, and once again prior to this sitting, Cremona says that the law firm had never received any inquiry from the NAO.

It could be that an email was missed, but there was no official letter or summons for sure from the NAO, he says.

“What worries me is that the Auditor General uses the plural – that he tried to contact us more than once – but we never received any communication,” Cremona adds.

The law firm would have had no issue testifying as long as his clients allowed him to, he says.

13:38: Cremona is handed a few documents by De Marco to verify.  These relate to the law firm’s work with regards to the drafting of the RfP and legal advice associated with it.

It is Filletti’s turn now to ask some questions to the witness. He asks whether Ganado Advocates was responsible for the legal criteria that were stipulated within the RfP – a statement which Cremona says is correct.

He doesn’t remember whether there were any permanent secretaries involved in the process.

13:26: Cremona says that there was a list of items which they felt should not have been in the contract. “There was a disagreement, and we discussed and sent an email insisting that four things should not be included,” he says.

“Little did we know that the email where we insisted that some things had to be drafted differently was the last email communication we had… Nobody answered anything else,” he continues.

13:21: The second engagement for the company was with regards to the drafting of the RfP, Cremona says. The law firm wrote substantial parts of it – the parts that lawyers would usually write, he adds.

The government then made a call for offers and the law firm was not involved again for another couple of months, when Mifsud Bonnici asked the law firm’s assistance in drafting the legal parts of the concession agreement.

There was pressure to get the matter done quickly, Cremona says.  This was internally from financial consultants, he says. He names David Galea, of BEAT Ltd, and the auditing firm RSM through George Gregory as being these consultants.

He specifies that neither he nor any of his colleagues had been involved in the adjudication process.

13:11: Cremona says that given the legal limbo that the country was in owing to an EU directive on procurement not being transposed yet, he had sought international legal advice on the matter.

The MoU was non-binding, Cremona says.  Ganado Advocates did not participate in the MoU, but they knew about it and had given advice on how the concession process should continue – that the concession shouldn’t be a property concession but a public service concession.

Mifsud Bonnici, Cremona continues, had followed the legal advice that they had given when it came to drafting the RfP.  De Marco suggests that Ganado Advocates had addressed the MoU and that it was non-binding: “In my mind, this had to be fully procured,” Cremona says.

13:03: De Marco asks whether Cremona and his law firm were aware of the memorandum of understanding as the RfP was being drafted.

Aron Mifsud Bonnici had sent an email containing a presentation from the investors, Cremona says. The presentation was using PwC’s font, but it wasn’t actually signed by PwC.  The document was useful to understand the project and to understand that a tender was needed, Cremona continues.

The MoU was sent to him, un-redacted, a couple of days later, together with general advice – this wasn’t signed by anyone or directed to anyone, but it was signed by DF Advocates, he says.  This concerned matters related to real estate.

12:58: Antoine Cremona is up next.  He is a partner at Ganado Advocates, and he represents clients in civil and commercial litigation proceedings.  Public procurement falls under his wing.

De Marco is the lawyer asking the questions this time, and asks whether Cremona was engaged to help the government in the context of this tender.

Cremona explains that he is bound by lawyer-client privilege but when he was summoned he had asked the client whether he can share the information – with the client being today’s successor to Projects Malta and the Health Ministry, which they had granted.

He says that the first time he had heard of an inquiry to be engaged in this project was on 5 February 2015. The company was, separately, engaged with regards to the termination of the concession.  The situation in 2015 was complex because up till then public service concessions weren’t regulated by a specific EU directive, Cremona says.

This is a pretty technical testimony so far about the legalisms of the procurement process.

12:43: Prosecutor Refalo asks what reply he had received to his emails, but Debattista doesn’t remember. He cannot remember whether he spoke to Scicluna directly either.

Debono now asks another question, and Debattista says that the matter wasn’t whether the decision had been taken by Cabinet or not but rather had been because both he and Scicluna did not know that Camilleri was on the Projects Malta board.

Debono’s gripe appears to be with regards to a suggestion by Debattista in his email that Camilleri should have said that the decision were, on his assumption, taken by Cabinet.  He did not know whether the Cabinet had actually been involved.

“So why did you butt into it? You were talking to a minister not to a friend about a game of football,” Debono says. Debattista says that his email was on the fact that Camilleri was a board member of Projects Malta and they were not aware.

“You placed words haphazardly,” Debono suggests. “No, that comment was on the fact that Mr Camilleri was a board member of Projects Malta,” Debattista replies.

His assumption in his email was based on Camilleri’s own replies to the media.

Debattista's testimony ends there.

12:35: Debattista is asked about another email, where Scicluna had asked whether he knew that Camilleri was on the Projects Malta board.

"Yes that is why I sent you an email on it. He is either dumb by accepting to be on a board when he is not informed on what is happening or he was getting paid and thus he closed an eye or else he knew what was happening and he did not say anything to anybody,” is what Debattista had written in reply to the Minister, according to the magisterial inquiry.

The implication that ‘he was getting paid’ is referring to the possibility that he was getting paid to be a part of the board, Debattista explains – something he didn’t know for certain.

12:30: Paul Debattista, the ex-chief of staff of Edward Scicluna’s Finance Ministry, is up next.

Debono cites two paragraphs from magistrate Gabriella Vella’s proces verbal where an email by Debattista is cited as saying that Alfred Camilleri – then Permanent Secretary – “should have been more careful” with regards to the concession or that “he did it on purpose.”

Debattista is asked about this, but he says that’s only part of the email and says he doesn’t know what’s in the inquiry or what happens in Cabinet. Debono asks whether he knew at the time – in 2020 – he knew whether the concession was a Cabinet decision.

Debattista says he didn’t. “Isn’t that negligence on your part?,” Debono says, but Debattista disagrees. He says that his responsibility was to see what work the ministry’s secretariat was doing.

Debono asks how Debattista felt – if he didn’t know about what was happening with regards to the concession – he could speak about Alfred Camilleri. 

Debattista explains that it appears that Scicluna had asked him about a media report but Debono cuts him short: “You said you didn’t know, so why did you butt in!,” the lawyer exclaims.

“I was commenting on something in the papers,” Debattista says. Debono however asks how he felt he could comment on something he didn’t know.  “It was my opinion… this was a private email,” he replies.

Debono implies that Camilleri is only charged in this courtroom because of this email. “It’s an un-informed opinion because you didn’t know what was happening,” the lawyer points out, to which Debattista agrees.

12:20: The sitting resumes.  An assistant to the clerk of the House of Representatives – ergo, Parliament – is next to take the witness stand.

He has two Parliamentary Questions to exhibit: both ask about the Finance Ministry’s part in negotiations with Vitals – which it didn’t have.

He leaves the witness stand.

11:58: Financial Crimes Department Superintendent David Grech is up next.

Tonna Lowell passes an email to the witness and asks him to read it out.  The superintendent confirms that he had received the email and what investigations he had led.

The email was sent by Tonna Lowell himself on behalf of Fearne referring to some media articles the day before, where it was being requested that certain allegations being made against him be investigated.

There were allegations that the minister had connections with some Russians and the hospitals deal.  The police had investigated the matter and had also sought the assistance of the inquiring magistrate as to whether she had any information in this regard – she hadn’t and she wasn’t investigating this lead.

The police investigation saw financial investigations on Fearne and his daughter on the basis of the media reports, but there was no wrongdoing on either party.  The superintendent confirms the veracity of a letter to Fearne which stated that the police had cleared him and found no evidence of wrongdoing, bringing his testimony to an end.

Magistrate Caruana suspends the sitting for a 15 minute break – we will be back shortly.

11:51: Refalo asks the Auditor General to confirm whether the Deguaras and Farrugia were the legal counsel for Vitals, which he confirms.

“They’re not mentioned in any negative way,” Debono – who is representing the lawyers – points out.  The Auditor General now leafs through a stack of documents in order to find exactly how they are mentioned – the Magistrate meanwhile points out that they are mentioned as a “state of fact” as legal counsel to Vitals.

Deguara’s testimony ends.

11:45: Prosecutor Francesco Refalo now cross-examines the witness. 

He asks whether it’s correct to say that the NAO’s role was to investigate matters related to good governance, a statement Deguara agrees with.

This is on transparency and accountability; that documents were well-kept, that minutes were kept, he explains.  It also means compliance with regulations, and value for money, he continues.  “These are the aspects our work touches upon,” he says.

“We are guardians of the public purse… that’s our job.  When I emphasised the due diligence aspect it’s because we have this duty,” he adds.

11:41: Lawyer Gianella De Marco, who is representing Aron Mifsud Bonnici, now asks whether the NAO asked Ganado Advocates or PwC – who presented the tender bid – had done any due diligence on their own part.  They hadn’t, Deguara said.

She asks now whether there are any guidelines for due diligence to be done at the RfP stage. “Not guidelines, but it’s considered as best practice,” Deguara says.

De Marco asks whether due diligence was always done on other projects, to which Deguara says that it’s not always done, but reminds of the massive amount of money involved in this particular tender.

11:36: Psaila keeps pressing on the point, but Deguara says he cannot answer further.

The Magistrate now rephrases the question himself a bit more gently.  Deguara replies simply that the NAO had found that no proper due diligence had been done.

Debono is now pushing on this point, and asking whether the NAO had taken into consideration that the bidders themselves had taken it onto themselves to do due diligence. 

Debono refers to the magisterial inquiry, which said that Projects Malta had a peripheral role. “As far as I know, Projects Malta issued the RfP,” Deguara replies.

Psaila is up again.  He observes that the NAO had said that the government knew of the memorandum of understanding – which had been signed prior to the issuing of the tender – but it was still recommended that the tender be issued.

Deguara says that once that MoU was issued the NAO felt that the RfP should have been stopped.

11:27: Psaila asks who had to lead that due diligence process according to the NAO, and Deguara says that it was those responsible for leading the project.

Psaila is asking about points when the law firm Ganado Advocates did not reply to the NAO’s inquiries. Deguara explains that Projects Malta was in charge of the RfP and adjudication process, and Ganado were the consultants helping in the RfP. 

The Ministry at the time was made up of both Energy and Health – this was Konrad Mizzi’s ministry at the time.  The RfP was issued by Projects Malta – but who wrote the document, Psaila asks, but Deguara doesn’t know exactly the answer.

The NAO asked Ganado who exactly gave them direction on the RfP – the Energy side apparently had no input, the Health side also said it was sidelined – so it was obvious to ask the law firm on this, but they never answered.

The evaluation committee wasn’t expected to do the due diligence, Psaila suggests. “Yes,” Deguara replies. “So this principle of due diligence, who did you expect it from?,” Psaila asks.

“If we aren’t going to accept the principle of proper due diligence on people and of good governance in a contract where the government is going to pay many millions… then I don’t know,” Deguara laments.

11:15: Lawyer Ezekiel Psaila, on behalf of Manuel Castagna, is next to ask questions.

He cites a passage out of the NAO’s first report which caters for due diligence, and says that he could not find a document which necessitates this.

Deguara replies that the principle behind the NAO’s investigations is good governance. “Am I right to say that the RfP there was no necessity for due diligence?,” Psaila asks.

This was the case, but Deguara says that being that “this was the biggest tender ever given” and the NAO felt that the government should do due diligence to see who they are doing business with on a tender like this.

“That’s what we are saying; that there should have been some decent due diligence on Vitals… had it been done, the deal probably wouldn’t have happened,” Deguara says before the court cuts him short.

Psaila is trying to see whether the evaluation committee – of which his client was a member of – proceeded according to the terms of the RfP, which did not include a stipulation on due diligence.

“You’re taking a particular paragraph somewhat out of context.  The context is adjudication – an important part of it is doing the due diligence on who you are going to go to enter into an agreement with,” Deguara replies.

11:08: Tonna Lowell is next to ask, and he is seeking a very particular document – so particular that not even Deguara is quite sure exactly what the lawyer is referring to.

We know it’s a particular email – one possibly sent to him by the State Advocate about legal advice that the same office had given.

Tonna Lowell now asks whether Deguara confirms that the NAO had found no shortcomings from Fearne and Scicluna – which Deguara does.

11:01: The remark in question from the report – the first one – is that the government was not to give any money by the government for capital investment.

Deguara explains in reply to Debono that the concessionaire was given a fixed fee, and the medical tourism that the concessionaires were meant to attract was what would finance the capital investment required.

“The medical tourism never happened, so the investment never happened,” Deguara says.

The explanation satisfies Debono. 

10:55: Debono contends that the witness did not elevate any documents related to DF Consultancy Services Ltd, but the Magistrate says that such a matter can be specified at a later stage in the case.

Spiteri’s testimony ends and he steps off the witness stand.  NAO Auditor General Charles Deguara meanwhile has returned to the stand.

10:54: Former police sergeant Shaun Spiteri is next to testify.  He also testified last week, having been asked about the keywords he had been asked to look for during searches that he led.

Spiteri hands over a paper with the said keywords – a bunch of defence lawyers huddle around it and give it a once over, as the court orders that the document be sealed within the acts of the case and can only be accessed by the parties in the case.

Debono asks whether in his searches at DF Consultancy Services Ltd he had found anything pertaining to those keywords – which remain unspecified to us in the balcony.  Spiteri says that he cannot answer because he wasn’t the one searching for the keywords – it’s another police inspector and the court’s experts who can.

“I didn’t carry out any searches – I just issued receipts on files which had been elevated,” Spiteri explains.  He was merely following orders from police inspector George Frendo and the court experts, he says.

“Could it be that at the time you didn’t make a sufficient distinction between DF Advocates and DF Consultancy Services?” Debono asks… the question is protested and he rephrases it.

“I didn’t make any distinction – I relied on what police inspector George Frendo and the court experts told me, and issued a receipt accordingly,” the witness replies.

10:46: Franco Debono is next with a couple of questions of his own.  These will concern two documents: a Cabinet memo from June 2015 and an email from the following month.

Spagnol explains that the memo was presented by Konrad Mizzi to Cabinet.  The memo refers to the Cabinet agreeing on something – which is for the concession for the hospitals to be handed to Vitals Global Healthcare after the recommendation of the adjudication committee.

“This was a Cabinet decision,” Debono suggests. “Yes,” Spagnol says. 

The Cabinet Secretary’s testimony ends there, but he’ll come back later this week with a decision from the Cabinet on the particular document that Filletti has sought.

10:37: It’s Filletti’s turn to seek Spagnol’s verification on some documents, but as the lawyer describes the first one, the Cabinet Secretary says that he cannot answer on it because it wasn’t on his list of documents to bring.

In any case, Spagnol says he’s not sure exactly what Filletti’s request is referring to in terms of documents. One of the documents is in the inquiry, but another – concerning guarantees given to the concessionaires – was not.

“We have a problem then,” the magistrate observes, as Spagnol had filed a court application on what he could and couldn’t share due to the laws governing Cabinet’s secrecy.  Prosecutor Francesco Refalo suggests that the witness can seek written permission from the Cabinet to be allowed to exhibit the desired document.

10:32: 10 minutes or memos from Cabinet are confirmed. The document which he cannot confirm in full is the one from 31 May 2023 which Spagnol says he can confirm the contents – but only the signature is different from a document he has.

Another document from 2021 is withdrawn by the defence as Spagnol cannot verify it himself.

Spagnol confirms that the concession was first presented by Konrad Mizzi in 2015, and that in 2023 it ended with two memos from Fearne and the Justice Ministry respectively.

Tonna Lowell refers to a document from 10 September 2019 – it says that Fearne explained that there was a decision that he did not want the hospital buildings to be offered up to the concessionaires.  This is confirmed by Spagnol as well.

10:27: Cabinet Secretary Ryan Spagnol is up next, but there is some debate first owing to a request by the witness to not present certain documents as he is legally constrained from doing so.

A State Advocate lawyer is here with Spagnol, but Magistrate Caruana says that he has no say in the court room as he is not parte-civile – a party to the case.

Spagnol faces questions from Tonna Lowell.  He has in hand a range of memoranda from Cabinet with the first being from June 2015 which contained the information first given by Konrad Mizzi to Cabinet and the last being from May 2023 when the concession was terminated by Chris Fearne.

Tonna Lowell asks Spagnol to confirm their veracity.  The Cabinet Secretary leafs through the documents on the witness stand for a few minutes – he says he can give the okay to all of them except for one.

10:19: Lawyer Stefano Filletti is the one who summoned Buhagiar to the stand, seeking the job history of Deborah Ann Chappell.

Chappell worked as an advocate with DF Advocates between 2011 and 2012, and then as a lawyer between 24 August 2013 and 31 December 2013 with the same company.  On 1 January 2014, she was employed with DF Consultancy Services Ltd.

From 1 February 2017 she served as Chief Legal Officer of Vitals Global Healthcare, and then from 1 May 2018 was listed as being self-employed.

Buhagiar’s testimony ends there.

10:15: Deguara’s testimony ends here – for now.  He has to return with some specific details from the NAO’s reports for Franco Debono.

A JobsPlus representative – Louis Buhagiar – is up next.

10:13: The questioning continues: “Do you confirm that the Finance Ministry always behaved in an impeccable way?,” Tonna Lowell asks.

“Yes, we were always given the documentation we needed and the necessary cooperation,” Deguara says.  He is asked whether the NAO had found anything on then-Finance Minister Edward Scicluna.

“We found nothing – not on Minister Scicluna and neither on his Permanent Secretary [Alfred Camilleri, who is also charged today],” Deguara says.

He confirms, in response to lawyer Michael Sciriha, that Bradley Gatt meanwhile – another of the accused today – was not mentioned at any point in the NAO’s reports.

10:10: Tonna Lowell is now asking about the difference between a public contract and a concession.  On who had picked which of the two options to follow, Deguara said that it was the Energy Ministry, which had always sustained that they had taken over the project because of Projects Malta.

The lawyer continues his line of questioning, quoting from one of the reports – which stipulates that the concession should preferably have been a public service obligation which has more onerous requirements than a concession.  “It’s more binding, and the Finance Ministry would have been more involved,” Deguara said.

“This isn’t a simple small tender, this is without a doubt the biggest project ever thought of in Malta,” he continued.

10:02: Tonna Lowell now quotes from the third report – again along the same lines – and asks directly “what was of great concern to the NAO.”

“The fact that for a health project, the Health Ministry was practically not involved,” Deguara replies. “How can you go into an enormous health project like this, and the Health Minister is practically not involved? It’s not just a concern, the process couldn’t work because there was no expert input on their part,” Deguara continues.

The Auditor General says that there was “strong cooperation” from Fearne and from the rest of the ministry, including Permanent Secretary Joseph Rapa (another of the accused in this case), with the NAO.

Tonna Lowell asks what the NAO had concluded about Fearne. “In our opinion it was wrong that the Health Ministry was sidelined,” Deguara re-explains.

“So Minister Fearne was sidelined but he and his ministry cooperated fully with you anyway,” Tonna Lowell suggests. “Yes, yes,” Deguara replies.

09:57: Lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell, who is representing Fearne and Scicluna, says he is going to mention some segments of the NAO’s three reports into the hospitals and asks what they are referring to.

From the first report, Tonna Lowell quotes that it was of “grave concern” that the Health Ministry was not involved in the drafting of the concession but that it had been “captured” by Konrad Mizzi’s Energy Ministry.

“This was one of our principle concerns: when this was a health project, we couldn’t understand how the Health Ministry was not involved almost in any way,” Deguara testifies, after confirming that this remark comes up at various stages of the reports.

Tonna Lowell quotes another extract from the second report this time which is along the same lines, and Deguara reiterates that the NAO “couldn’t understand” how the Health Ministry “had been sidelined” in what is a health project.

“This is based on facts, not opinions, right?,” Tonna Lowell asks; “This is fact-based – either through documentary evidence or interviews,” Deguara replies.

09:51: Lawyer Franco Galea, who is representing Deborah Ann Chappell, asks whether the NAO had audited the financials of Vitals or Steward, but Deguara replies that they couldn’t because the two companies are private entities and therefore out of their remit.

Lawyer Franco Debono, representing Kevin and Kenneth Deguara and Jean Carl Farrugia, asks what the government was paying the concessionaire for, to which the Auditor General explains that the capital expenditure on behalf of the government was for certain improvements that had to be made.

He reiterates that the NAO’s remit was to audit public entities – it could not audit private entities such as Vitals or Steward.

09:42: Auditor General Charles Deguara - who testified last week - is the first witness of the day.

09:38: The sitting is now underway as Magistrate Leonard Caruana enters the court room.