A magistrate has rejected three separate requests for magisterial inquiries which were filed by lawyer and former PN MP Jason Azzopardi in relation to issues in Gozo.

The requests were filed on 29 January this year and the subject matters ranged from mooring spots in Mgarr Harbour, a road in Nadur, and the long-delayed Gozo pool complex.

Azzopardi had initially filed the requests for magisterial inquiries between Christmas and New Year’s Day but they were rejected as they were filed in Malta’s courts, not Gozo’s.  The former PN MP subsequently re-filed the requests, this time before the Gozitan courts.

All three of the magisterial inquiries came before Duty Magistrate Brigitte Sultana.  She rejected all three with nearly identical rulings.

On Azzopardi’s request for an inquiry into a road built in Nadur, the magistrate said that the requisites for the opening of an inquiry were not satisfied.

Azzopardi had singled out Minister Clint Camilleri, permanent secretary for the Gozo Ministry John Borg, and architects Godwin Agius, and Andrew Ellul in this request, and alleged that a €700,000 bribe was paid on these public works "under the guise of consultancy services".

The Nadur Road in question was subject to a National Audit Office investigation which found that the project went €10.5 million over budget due to “insufficient planning and poor management” by the Gozo Ministry.

In her ruling, Magistrate Sultana highlighted five pre-requisites that had to be satisfied: that the suspects be named, that the alleged crime carry a penalty of over three years imprisonment, that the subject material of the alleged crime still exists, that it is described in detail, and that the instrument and way in which the crime allegedly took place is explained.

The magistrate said that the third, fourth, and fifth pre-requisites had not been satisfied.

“The aim of an inquiry is to preserve evidence, however the complainant did not indicate traces or indications of the evidence that had to be preserved,” the magistrate said.  References to mobile phones, servers and electronic devices were generic and put into doubt the information that Azzopardi gave, the magistrate continued.

She continued: “Despite saying that there was a web of corruption, money laundering, and bribery, the complainant in no way says how this happens. At no point does he describe any type of layering which is commonly used in money laundering, or put forward any document which shows how the bribery happened.”

“The complainant reports that the money laundering was facilitated by a number of associated actors, without naming who these are.  He also refers to third persons and contractors, but these remain up in the air,” the magistrate continued.

The magistrate noted that it’s not enough for an application to name the crimes, the elements which form them together with the suspects, but then to not mention anything connecting them.  She also noted that Azzopardi had presented parts of an Auditor General report, but observed that the Auditor General did not find any breach of the Criminal Code – something the magistrate described as important as the Auditor General has a legal obligation to report a crime if he finds one.

Commenting on media stories which were included in Azzopardi’s complaint, Magistrate Sultana said that while the articles give reason for concern due to the alleged maladministration and lack of governance on the project, they do not amount to what the law requires but only constitute “the opinions of the journalists who wrote the articles and the complainant’s conclusions and interpretations on them.”

Finally, the magistrate noted that the information acquired by Azzopardi in his role as a lawyer is anonymous information as Azzopardi cannot reveal the information source unless specifically authorised to do so – and with no authorisation in that sense tabled in the complaint, the information cannot be considered as evidence, even at a prime facie level.

With the above in mind, the magistrate rejected Azzopardi’s request for an inquiry into this matter.

With regards to Azzopardi’s request for an inquiry into an alleged corruption ring for mooring spots at Mgarr Harbour, Magistrate Brigitte Sultana’s ruling was pretty much identical.

She rejected the request for an inquiry – which was against Gozo Minister Clint Camilleri, his wife Deborah Camilleri, together with Anthony Caruana, Christoph Caruana, and Marcel Meilaq – for the same reasons that the inquiry request into the Nadur road was rejected.

In his request, Azzopardi had alleged that the mooring spots were being handed out in a fraudulent manner, alleging that Anthony Caruana would promise government jobs or mooring spots to individuals in exchange for monetary kickbacks of other gifts.

Azzopardi alleged that Minister Camilleri was aware of the racket and gained political mileage by securing electoral votes through it.  He also said that the minister’s wife, who is a top manager at Transport Malta, was embezzling and misappropriating public funds by practicing her legal profession in Gozo during office hours.

On Azzopardi’s request for an inquiry into the Gozo pool complex, Magistrate Sultana’s ruling was nearly identical again – although this time she also noted that Azzopardi had failed to present any evidence to back up claims that the two suspects – Clint Camilleri and John Borg – possessed unexplained wealth.

This request was rejected as well.

In this case, Azzopardi had asked the magistrate to investigate the cost of the Olympic-sized swimming pool at the Gozo Sports Complex – a project which has long been promised but has been subject to several delays and missed deadlines.