Former Malta Enterprise CEO Mario Galea dismissed a controversial memorandum of understanding signed between the government and a group of investors who would go on to form the company Vitals Global Healthcare as “a piece of paper with no legal value.”

The 2014 MoU came under the microscope on Wednesday as the court case against Chris Fearne, Edward Scicluna, and a host of others continued before Magistrate Leonard Caruana.

The MoU, which was signed in October 2014, was cited by the National Audit Office later on as clear basis for why Vitals’ bid for the hospitals concession should not have been accepted.

Chris Cardona, who served as economy minister between 2013 and 2020, also testified during the day’s sitting, having testified in the parallel case against Joseph Muscat, Konrad Mizzi, Keith Schembri and others on Wednesday.

He had a bone to pick with media houses Times of Malta and MaltaToday, saying that the newspapers had mis-reported his testimony. 

Cardona reiterated much of his testimony from the previous day, which centred around a controversial memorandum of understanding signed by him on behalf of the government and by investors who ultimately went on to form Vitals Global Healthcare.

Cardona said that he did read the MoU prior to signing it, and explained that it concerned a proposal to privatise the Gozo General Hospital and included stipulations protecting the Malta Enterprise client Barts Medical School.

The investors – which included the company Bluestone and other people later involved in setting up Vitals – were obliged to provide a business plan within three months as part of the MoU, which they did.

“What happened is, that in time, we realised that the proposals did not fall in line with the government’s healthcare plans,” Cardona told the court.

Cardona repeated another assertion he made in the previous day’s sitting when asked about whether he knew anything about the people who he was signing the MoU with: “I didn’t know who they were,” he said.

He merely knew who the people who were signing represented in terms of companies.

The MoU was signed by Mark Edward Pawley in his capacity as Director of Bluestone Special Situation 4 Ltd, Dr Ashok Rattehalli in his capacity as Director of AGMC Incorporated, and Mohammad Shoaib Walajahi and Chaudhry Shaukat Ali in their capacity as Directors of Pivot Holdings Ltd.

Cardona said that Malta Enterprise invariably always did due diligence on anybody interested in investing in the local market but this is not something that he would be involved in directly.

“This type of memoranda is a non-binding agreement. They would ask us for something in writing with the government. In the meantime, the government would be doing its research on the signatories but that was something others would do,” he said.

Lawyer Stefano Filletti asked Cardona whether he saw anything irregular in the MoU, to which Cardona said that he did not and he had comfort in the fact that the agreement itself was legally non-binding.

Former Malta Enterprise CEO Mario Galea also took to the witness stand on Wednesday, and discussed the MoU at some length.

On how he got to know the investors behind the MoU, Galea said that he had simply been told about this meeting and he attended.  The meeting, he said, was coordinated by the Office of the Prime Minister’s secretariat, something which he said was normal.

Galea said that he recalls meeting the investors behind Vitals once, and after that meeting they began working on the MoU – which was a consequence of this same meeting. “For there to be a relationship, you have to start from somewhere,” he said.

The MoU’s deliverable was clear: that the investors had to submit a business plan to the government within three months, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on, he added.

The business plan was presented by representatives of the investors, Galea said.  Ram Tumuluri was the person who led the presentation, he recalled, and it was in a meeting room on the first floor of Castille – the Prime Minister’s office.

He continued that he then spoke to the then-Health Minister Konrad Mizzi and the conclusion was drawn that the plans presented were not in line with the government’s priorities and so the MoU was closed.

“The MoU was a piece of paper which had no legal value,” Galea said. “Once the business plan was done, that’s it, the MoU was finished,” he added.

Under cross-examination by lawyer Stefano Filletti, Galea said that in the meeting he had with the investors the information that he had shared was all available in the public domain.

Filletti remarked that it was alleged that the Vitals team had been put in an “advantaged” position for their bid for the eventual concession because of it had signed an MoU with the government beforehand. He asked Galea whether he felt this is true.

“They definitely were not at an advantage.  There were no figures involved in the MoU.  Maybe the fact that they knew about it made them more prepared for the RfP, but they definitely had no advantage… you can’t have an advantage against nobody,” he replied.

Filletti asked if he had given the investors any information which could have given the an advantage in the eventual RfP, and Galea replies that he didn’t even have any information that could have given them an advantage to give.

Prosecutor Rebekah Spiteri seizds upon Galea’s answer that one cannot have an advantage if there is nobody to have an advantage against. “Had another bidder come, I would have given them the same information so I would not have created any advantage,” Galea replied.

Under cross-examination by lawyer Gianella De Marco, Galea also said that he was “100% in agreement” with the notion that the concession and the MoU were “totally different” from each other.

Auditor General Charles Deguara, who also testified during the sitting, however held a wholly different interpretation.

He gave an explanation of the National Audit Office’s work investigating the concession: three reports and an addendum had been published looking into the deal from when it was evaluated to when it was transferred to Steward Health Care.

The first NAO report was the evaluation of the concession bid, an addendum to it focused on the MoU as it was provided to the NAO two weeks after the first report was published, the second report looked into the agreements and various amendments to them between Vitals and the government, and the third report looked into the transferring of the concession from Vitals to Steward.

Deguara said that the NAO’s focus is one: “aspects and principles of good governance.”

Deguara said that the NAO felt that the RfP was “an extension” of the MoU, prompting murmurs of discontent from the defence benches, who had argued that Deguara should not be allowed to testify as he was expressing an opinion on the case.

“The RfP was essentially an extension of the MoU with the difference that the MoU only focused on the Gozo General Hospital,” Deguara said.

The RfP was essentially the same business model, the investors were the same but the only difference was that the MoU focused on Gozo General Hospital and the RfP added two more hospitals, Deguara continued.

He also testified that the agreements reached between the government and Vitals after the company had been awarded the concession were substantially different to what was in the RfP – and this to the detriment of the government and the benefit of Steward.

“We found evidence that this agreement was not in the interest of the government, because the money received would be less than that paid by government... that is, the government was not being reimbursed enough,” Deguara said.

“There was a substantial difference between the RfP and what was ultimately agreed with Vitals, and this was generally to Vitals’ benefit,” Deguara said.

The case will continue on 3 October with the testimony of some of the experts engaged as part of Magistrate Gabriella Vella’s inquiry.

16:00: There’s some debate ongoing on when the next sitting will be.  It will be on 3 October, and some of the experts from the magisterial inquiry will be in Malta to testify. They will be cross-examined during another sitting on 11 October.

15:44: Lawyer David Farrugia Sacco asks about a point related to the negotiations between the government and Vitals, but Deguara says that the negotiating committee never kept any minutes or notes about the talks – adding that this is a grave shortcoming of good governance.

Lawyer Ishmael Psaila asks whether the lawyer part of Deguara’s team was an in-house lawyer or not, and Deguara says that the lawyer in question is employed by the NAO, but the team also had external legal consultants with whom it did consult with at particular moments.

Magistrate Caruana rules that it’s irrelevant to know who these external consultants were, and Deguara’s testimony comes to an end.

15:30: Filletti asks the witness was aware that Alfred Camilleri had sought an investigation from the government’s internal audit department and that it had found no wrongdoing – but Deguara says he was not aware of this investigation.

Filletti keeps pushing on it, but Deguara fires back at him: “How am I meant to know?  It’s not a fair question! How can I know if these investigations are confidential? Don’t ask a question to trap me!”

After calming down, he repeats that the investigations that this department carry out are confidential, but the NAO had been in touch with them at a point during the investigations.

15:25: Galea asks specifically whether the NAO had found that Joseph Rapa – then Health Ministry Permanent Secretary – had committed any wrongdoing, to which Deguara says that no wrongdoing was seen.  “We’d have noticed if there was,” he says.

Filletti’s turn next, and he refers to Deguara’s previous testimony that in the preparation of the RfP there wasn’t the necessary expertise from the health ministry, but asks him to confirm the involvement of the directors of the two hospitals throughout the process.

They were present and involved, Deguara says and points out that this was addressed at length in the reports.

Filletti asks whether payments from the government were always for the operation of the hospitals, and Deguara says that there were those but there were also others. Filletti points out therefore that the government’s payment were not for infrastructural investments.

Deguara says that the government payments were not intended for infrastructural investments: Vitals had to finance that themselves from their income from medical tourism – financing which never came.

15:18: Questioning from the prosecution has come to an end, and cross-examination begins.

Lawyer Franco Galea asks if there is anyone within his team who has a legal background.  Deguara asks the magistrate whether he should answer this question, bringing the credibility of his team into it.  The prosecution objects to the line of the questioning as well, saying that Deguara is the one answerable to the report and there’s no need to stay asking about individuals.

Still, the Auditor General is told to answer, and he says that the team does include a lawyer, but does not name who it is.

Galea asks what the NAO’s exact remit was, to which Deguara replies again that their “yardstick” is “good governance” but if they meet cases where there is a suspicion that there are issues which go beyond that, they inform the Permanent Secretary or Police to investigate as necessary.

15:08: Deguara is now testifying about details from the NAO’s reports – the objections from the defence have petered out.

“We found evidence that this agreement was not in the interest of the government, because the money received would be less than that paid by government... that is, the government was not being reimbursed enough,” Deguara says.

“There was a substantial difference between the RfP and what was ultimately agreed with Vitals, and this was generally to Vitals’ benefit,” Deguara says, noting he’s speaking always in terms of good governance.

He is asked about a remark in the reports that there was a risk of fraud and misappropriation, particularly because Vitals failed to file audited accounts for four years.  “When audited accounts aren’t filed, you’ve got a risk that the money is not being used for its intended purpose,” he replies.

14:52: There are more protests from the defence.  Deguara offers to start using the word “findings” instead of “opinion”, but the defence continues to assist that what the Auditor General is saying should not be admissible.

He now begins a sentence with “in our professional opinion”, which the defence doesn’t like either.

Deguara says that it is a basic principle of good governance that in a health project then the health ministry should be involved.  This was not the case here, he says.

14:43: Deguara says that the NAO felt that the RfP was “an extension” of the MoU, prompting murmurs of discontent from the defence benches, which the magistrate promptly quietens down.

“The RfP was essentially an extension of the MoU with the difference that the MoU only focused on the Gozo General Hospital,” Deguara says. “We feel – and this is our opinion based on an objective analysis… document next to document…” Deguara begins, before the defence again protest.

“Opinion is jargon… it’s an audit opinion not my personal opinion,” the Auditor General says.

The RfP was essentially the same business model, the investors were the same but the only difference was that the MoU focused on Gozo General Hospital and the RfP added two more hospitals, Deguara continues.

14:39: Deguara is asked about the MoU.  He says that he had asked a number of entities but none could provide it, only for it to be then provided two weeks after the NAO’s first report was issued.

Filletti is interjecting at multiple junctures, saying that what Deguara is being asked is for an opinion. Magistrate Caruana is now speaking to the prosecution about this matter.  The question which is being objected to is one asking Deguara for his interpretation on the similarities or otherwise between the MoU and the RfP.

The Magistrate says that if something emerges from the report then it’s already in the acts of the case.  He is losing his patience with the prosecution, and the question is rephrased by the magistrate himself.

Filletti now questions whether Deguara is competent to speak about the MoU, but the magistrate tells him that he is yet to even ask the question in the first place.

14:27: Deguara is asked about the terms of reference that the NAO had for its inquiry.  He details things he’s already detailed before, explaining the context behind every publication associated with the hospitals deal.

The first NAO report was the evaluation of the concession bid, an addendum to it focused on the MoU as it was provided to the NAO two weeks after the first report was published, the second report looked into the agreements and various amendments to them between Vitals and the government, and the third report looked into the transferring of the concession from Vitals to Steward.

He says that the NAO’s focus is one: “aspects and principles of good governance.”

14:22: Magistrate Caruana decrees on the matter and says that in view of the fact that Deguara was asked to testify about the NAO’s reports, which are already presented in the acts of the case, he is ordered to testify about them and that his testimony should be limited to what is permitted by the law.

Deguara is therefore summoned back to the witness stand.

14:15: Magistrate Caruana verbalises Filletti’s point. 

Lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell, representing Fearne and Scicluna, has also said that even though the prosecution has arraigned all of the accused together they each have their own positions, and it is his clients’ position that Deguara should be allowed to testify.

Gianella De Marco, representing Aron Mifsud Bonnici, says that Deguara should be able to testify about facts, but cannot express opinions as a normal witness.

The prosecution argues that Deguara was asked to testify in his capacity as Auditor General, and in this role he had heard several witnesses himself and therefore his opinions are admissible and hold weight.

Filletti counter-argues that the law is clear in distinguishing between a normal witness and an expert witness – the latter must have “a special skill or knowledge that the court doesn’t have,” he says. "It's already a problem that he's heard witnesses," Filletti observes.  There is a legal procedure stipulated on how an expert should hear a witness - but if this procedure wasn't followed then there is already a problem.

He adds that the prosecution might as well take somebody off the streets and ask them for their opinion on Vitals, and it would be the same thing.

14:03: Auditor General Charles Deguara is the next, and final, witness of the day.

He is asked how the National Audit Office (NAO) had begun to prepare its reports into the hospitals concession.  The NAO had ultimately published three reports and an addendum into the hospitals deal, blasting the concession process across all three.

Deguara says that this was at the behest of Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee.

His testimony is cut short – Filletti wants to make a point, and Deguara is told to step outside of the courtroom for a few minutes.

“He is speaking about an administrative report on good governance – but it is his subjective opinion,” Filletti says of Deguara. “As a normal witness he cannot express an opinion on whether something right or wrong was done.  It is inadmissible because he is not a court expert, and so is precluded from expressing an opinion,” he continues.

AG lawyer Spiteri argues that the prosecution has the prerogative to summon witnesses, and furthermore the defence is contradicting itself because it had summoned Deguara as a witness itself during the prima facie proceedings.

Filletti claps back and says that if the AG has a carte-blanche to summon who it wants without the court being able to control it then that is a legislative issue which must be addressed. On the witness himself, “whether he has an institutional role or not, it is an opinion,” Filletti says, and adds that he has no problem in previous testimony that he gave being expunged.

13:54: Marisa Grech is the next witness to take the stand. She is here in her capacity as Acting Chief Officer of the Lands Authority.

She is asked what the authority’s involvement was in the concession after it was issued, but Grech says that there was no real involvement to speak of.  She exhibits a single document, and steps off the witness stand.

13:52: Lawyer Gianella De Marco is now cross-examining, and she asks Galea on whether the MoU – which only included the Gozo hospital – and the eventual RfP – which included the Gozo hospital together with two other hospitals – were totally different from each other.

Galea agrees, and points out that the MoU regardless was not legally binding and had been closed by then anyway.

“The concession was something totally different,” De Marco suggests.  “100% we are in agreement,” Galea replies.

With that, Galea steps off the witness stand.

13:49: Filletti asks about Galea’s remark that the MoU was a consequence of the meeting that Malta Enterprise had with the investors. Galea replies that in substance that was the case.

“In that meeting before the MoU, you said that the country’s economy and its expectations was discussed. What was the information that you gave these people?” Filletti asks.

Galea replies that the information that Malta Enterprise gives is always public information.  He said that during his tenure, the entity had a document with “basic data” within it which included general details about Malta. However, certain projects required more advanced information to be detailed.

Filletti remarks that it was alleged that the Vitals team had been put in an “advantaged” position for their bid for the eventual concession because of it had signed an MoU with the government beforehand. He asks Galea whether he feels this is true.

“They definitely were not at an advantage.  There were no figures involved in the MoU.  Maybe the fact that they knew about it made them more prepared for the RfP, but they definitely had no advantage… you can’t have an advantage against nobody,” he replies.

Filletti asks if he had given the investors any information which could have given the an advantage in the eventual RfP, and Galea replies that he didn’t even have any information that could have given them an advantage to give.

Prosecutor Rebekah Spiteri seizes upon Galea’s answer that one cannot have an advantage if there is nobody to have an advantage against.

“Had another bidder come, I would have given them the same information so I would not have created any advantage,” he replies.

13:38: Galea says that he never had an original copy of the MoU. 

It’s good to remember that when the National Audit Office had requested a copy of this MoU as it investigated the Vitals concession, it couldn’t be found – only to then be located two weeks after the NAO published its first report back in 2020.

Filletti now begins his cross-examination. He asks whether, when testifying in the magisterial inquiry, he had been asked to reproduce technical advice which Malta Enterprise had received from audit firm RSM on the potential investment that the Vitals investors were pitching.

That advice had found that from an economic perspective, the proposal to privatise the Gozo General Hospital would have been good for the country, Filletti observes.

13:29: The business plan was presented by representatives of the investors, Galea says.  Ram Tumuluri was the person who led the presentation, he recalls, and it was in a meeting room on the first floor of Castille – the Prime Minister’s office.

He continues that he then spoke to the then-Health Minister Konrad Mizzi and the conclusion was drawn that the plans presented were not in line with the government’s priorities and so the MoU was closed.

“The MoU was a piece of paper which had no legal value,” Galea says. “Once the business plan was done, that’s it, the MoU was finished,” he adds.

13:24: Speaking about the MoU, Galea says that in his 25 years at Malta Enterprise the entity had done some 35 to 40 MoUs – many weren’t formal agreements, but were just means of setting up a standing relationship.

Galea says that he recalls meeting the investors behind Vitals once, and after that meeting they began working on the MoU – which was a consequence of this same meeting. “For there to be a relationship, you have to start from somewhere,” he says.

The MoU’s deliverable was clear: that the investors had to submit a business plan to the government within three months, otherwise it wouldn’t be worth the paper it’s written on, he adds.

Galea continues that he had met Minister Chris Cardona and explained the context of the MoU and that Malta Enterprise’s primary client was Barts Medical School, and that the agreement had in mind safeguards to protect Barts.

13:17: Galea is explaining his role within Malta Enterprise – between 2004 and 2016 he was pretty much the head of Malta Enterprise’s Foreign Investment Unit. He was CEO of Malta Industrial Parks for a short period before becoming Malta Enterprise CEO in June 2016.

He goes into details on the requirements that were set for the entry of Barts into the Gozo medical complex. Galea says he had met the investors behind Vitals to explain these details, particularly within the context of the 2014 MoU.

Asked how he got to know the investors, Galea says that he had simply been told about this meeting and he attended.  The meeting, he says, was coordinated by the Office of the Prime Minister’s secretariat, something which he said was normal.

13:00: Magistrate Caruana returns.

Former Malta Enterprise CEO Mario Galea is the next witness to take the stand.

12:47: Filletti and Mamo exchange questions and answers delving into the technicalities of how the land transfers work, and how legal notices in the last few years had changed the legal framework surrounding land transfers and land disposals.

Mamo steps off the witness stand and Magistrate Caruana says that we will take a ten minute break.

12:36: Mamo says that the Lands Authority was involved in determining whether the sites in question were government land, expropriating the land which needed to be expropriated and then moving forward with the process.

Filletti now handles the cross-examination.  He asks whether Mamo had testified about this matter before in the magisterial inquiry.  Mamo says he hadn’t.

Filetti asks Mamo to confirm whether the Lands Authority was the only government authority able to transfer government land, but Mamo says that’s not the case – it is “impossible” for one authority to handle this, he says.

Malta Industrial Parks and Malta Enterprise, he says, administer industrial property; Sport Malta handles sporting projects; the Housing Authority handles social accommodation projects, for example.

12:27: Peter Mamo is the next witness to take the stand.

He is the former Lands Commissioner, although he says that he had been summoned as a representative of Indis Malta – an entity he never formed part of. He has a set of documents to exhibit. 

One is for the transfer of St Luke’s Hospital and Karin Grech Hospital to be transferred to Malta Industrial Parks Ltd – a government-owned company.  This was signed by then-Economy Minister Chris Cardona, counter-signed by Minister Michael Falzon, and is dated 6 April 2015.

The second regards the Gozo General Hospital – there were three requests, one superseding the other.  One was from Malta Enterprise on 9 February 2015, signed by Cardona and Falzon; the one after on from Indis Malta on 16 March 2015, also signed by Cardona and Falzon, for the property to be passed on to Malta Industrial Parks; and a third on 18 February 2016, signed by Cardona and Deborah Schembri, for plans again to be transferred to Malta Industrial Parks.

12:12: Cardona says that Malta Enterprise invariably always did due diligence on anybody interested in investing in the local market but this is not something that he would be involved in directly.

“This type of memoranda is a non-binding agreement. They would ask us for something in writing with the government. In the meantime, the government would be doing its research on the signatories but that was something others would do,” he says.

Lawyer Stefano Filletti asks Cardona whether he saw anything irregular in the MoU, to which Cardona says that he did not and he had comfort in the fact that the agreement itself was legally non-binding.

Lawyer Franco Debono brings up the copy of the MoU and points towards a paragraph which stipulates in fact that it was legally non-binding.  Cardona reads it out and confirms it, and continues reading from the agreement pointing out that there was also a clause that the agreement would be revoked in the case of a due diligence procedure causing red flags.

Cardona steps of the witness stand.

12:08: Cardona repeats another assertion he made in yesterday’s sitting when asked about whether he knew anything about the people who he was signing the MoU with: “I didn’t know who they were,” he says.

He merely knew who the people who were signing represented in terms of companies.

The MoU was signed represented by Mark Edward Pawley in his capacity as Director of Bluestone Special Situation 4 Ltd, Dr Ashok Rattehalli in his capacity as Director of AGMC Incorporated, and Mr Mohammad Shoaib Walajahi and Mr Chaudhry Shaukat Ali in their capacity as Directors of Pivot Holdings Ltd.

Shaukat Ali has also been charged in connection with the Vitals magisterial inquiry. Bluestone Special Situation 4 Ltd is the company under the umbrella of which Vitals Global Healthcare was ultimately set up.

12:01: He again insists that the press had misreported his earlier testimony, telling the court that he had read the memorandum of understanding before signing it. “I don’t know where they got that idea [that he had not read it before signing] from.” The answer to that question is: his own words to the court.

“Mario Galea had spoken to me... and sent an email to them... and the memorandum expired. If I’m not mistaken there was a term of some 6 months.” 

12:00: “This is not a new practice,” he says, but dates back to the setting up of Malta Enterprise (formerly Malta Development Corporation) in the 1970s.

“Contrary to what was reported yesterday, I did read the documents,” he says of the business plan tied to development of Barts Medical school. “What happened is, that in time, we realised that the proposals did not fall in line with the government’s healthcare plans and didn’t contemplate the development of St. Lukes and only focused on Gozo.”

The memorandum was terminated, he said. “My story ends here.”

11:59: “I did not have discussions, the discussions were done by Malta Enterprise with investors as always. When foreign investors express interest...negotiations begin. In the course of these negotiations a memorandum is signed. Yesterday I exhibited a list of memoranda I signed in my tenure.”

11:59: Former Economy Minister Chris Cardona takes the stand now.

He asks to address the court. “I testified yesterday in the proceedings against JM et and the reporting of my testimony by the Times of Malta and MaltaToday went completely opposite to what I said... He says that he expects the reports on today’s sitting will accuse him of changing his version. These are people who for the purposes of their malice...”

Court interrupts him and tells him that these proceedings are separate and that it would only be relying on his testimony today.

11:51: After Scerri steps off the witness stand, the next witness is called in: Josephine Cassar, permanent secretary (people and HR division) OPM. She says she had been given a list of names: Fearne, Scicluna, Ronald Mizzi, Alfred Camilleri, Joseph Rapa, Kenneth Deguara, Jean Carl Farrugia, Deborah Ann Chappell, Bradley Gatt, James Camenzuli, Emanuel Castagna, and Robert Borg whom she was asked to establish whether they were public officers or public officials - She also explains the difference.

Mr. Chris Fearne is a public official, employed as a consultant.

Ronald Mizzi is also a public official.

Alfred Camilleri had been a public official in 2020.

Rapa and Camenzuli are also public officials, Cassar tells the court.

The remainder were not.

11:48: She does the same with regards to Edward Scicluna.

11:44: Eleanor Scerri, Clerk of the House, is next to take the stand. She had been asked to exhibit a copy of the oaths of appointment sworn by Chris Fearne, and other documents, including his asset declarations.

11:43: Deguara is a director of The Convenience Shop Holding plc, the food retail chain, as well as Horizon Finance plc and Shoreline Mall plc, developers of the Shoreline at Smart City. He had previously acted as a spokesperson for Sadeen Group, the Jordanian developers of American University of Malta.

11:43: Kevin Deguara is one of five lawyers, together whis law firm DF Advocates and partner Jean Carl Farrugia, facing charges of having participated in a criminal activity and criminal association, and document fraud, including documents related to VAT.

11:42: The DF Advocates law firm held the brief for Vitals Global Healthcare.

11:42: Today’s first witness is Louis Buhagiar, a representative from JobsPlus. He had been asked to exhibit the full employment histories of DF Advocates lawyers Jean Carl Farrugia, Kevin Deguara and Kenneth Deguara. This he does and, in the absence of any cross-examination, leaves the courtroom.

11:40: Good morning – today’s proceedings are now underway before Magistrate Leonard Caruana.