Justice Minister Jonathan Attard has defended the Government's handling of the Vitals-Steward hospital concession case, insisting that its actions during the international arbitration process were consistent, legally grounded, and fully aligned with the obligations of the Maltese State.
Speaking in response to four key questions about the case, the Minister firmly rejected claims that the Government contradicted itself, concealed information, or failed to act on Steward Healthcare's shortcomings.
Answering questions, Attard addressed criticism that the government had used Adrian Delia's successful court case as both a limitation and an advantage during arbitration. He argued that when Malta appears before an international tribunal, the State is represented not only by the government but also by decisions taken by domestic institutions, including Maltese courts. For this reason, the Court of Appeal judgment had to form part of Malta's defence, regardless of any political interpretation of its effects, he said.
He said that Maltese law, not the government, determines the remedies available when a contract is rescinded. According to the Minister, the law requires that the parties be restored to the position they were in before signing the contract, meaning that additional damages cannot be claimed. "There is no question of damages-only recovery," he said. While the Government attempted to quantify the economic impact of the concession's collapse, including the abandoned plans for medical tourism and the premature end of the 30-year agreement, the tribunal ruled that such recovery was not possible under its interpretation of Maltese law.
The minister also dismissed claims that the government contradicted itself by criticising the Opposition's reference to €400 million while seeking €487 million in compensation. He emphasised that the Opposition's figure was presented in the context of what it described as a "€400 million theft", whereas the Government's €487 million was derived from scenarios prepared by technical experts during the arbitration process. According to Attard, the €487 million had "nothing to do" with the Opposition's allegation.
He added that even if-hypothetically-the Government had used the Opposition's figure, the issue was rendered irrelevant by the tribunal's ruling which found that no €400 million theft had occurred. The Minister stressed that the arbitration process established that every payment made by the State had resulted in a service or investment, which was quantified as part of the restitution calculations associated with the Court of Appeal judgment.
Responding to claims that the Government failed to flag Steward Healthcare's deficiencies, Attard insisted this was "not correct". He pointed to the National Audit Office's third report, which noted that in 2020, when Robert Abela became Prime Minister, the Government changed its approach towards Steward. This shift, he said, reflected efforts to position the Government to exercise its rights under the contract as concerns emerged.
However, Attard said that the Government did not take Steward to the Maltese courts because the concession agreement set out its own internal procedures, which led directly to arbitration. He emphasised that international arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce is a longstanding mechanism governed by international conventions to which Malta is a signatory. Attempts to portray arbitration as a tool for concealment were, he argued, rooted in a misunderstanding of how the system works. "No one can convince me that such a procedure can simply be avoided," he said.
The Minister also noted that while the Government was following the contractual procedures leading to arbitration, Delia "simultaneously-and in a rather precipitated manner" opened a court case in Malta challenging the same contracts. This resulted in two parallel paths: one based on obligations under the concession agreement, and the other arising from Delia's separate legal challenge, he said.
Attard also addressed the Government's description of the outcome as a victory for Malta, despite the ICC tribunal's observation that the Maltese people were the "primary victims" of the failed privatisation. He spoke about the broader context of the 30-year concession and how, despite of some of the results the government was hoping to gain from this, any amount of money the Maltese and Gozitan population paid went into some form of investment or medical services.
The minister maintained that the Government acted within all legal constraints, presenting domestic court rulings, technical analyses, and contractual requirements as part of a structured defence. He insisted that claims of contradiction, misrepresentation, or inaction failed to acknowledge the legal realities governing both Maltese law on rescission and international arbitration procedures.