A Court of Appeal has overturned a decision which found that Brian Tonna's right to a fair trial was breached when he testified before the Public Accounts Committee.

The Constitutional Court issued a ruling in a case brought forward by Brian Tonna against Speaker Anglu Farrugia and the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Tonna had argued that his rights were breached when a ruling by the Speaker made him testify before the Parliamentary Committee which was analysing the Electrogas tender.

The first court court declared that the Guide for Witnesses who appear before the PAC breached Tonna's right to a fair hearing, that the Speaker's ruling broke his same right and ordered the expunging of Tonna's testimony and the documentary evidence he had submitted to the PAC.

But the Constitutional Court, ruling on an appeal that was filed, said that not enough satisfactory evidence had been presented that the criminal procedures that had started against him in 2021 had anything to do with Electrogas.

The Court said that it was incumbent upon Tonna to show the Committee that the criminal case instituted against him in March 2021 was connected to the power station case, adding that he failed to do so.

The court considered arguments that had been made by Tonna.

While today there are criminal proceedings against Tonna and others concerning matters connected to the Electrogas power station, those proceedings were initiated years after the hearings before the Committee took place, the court noted.

The Court said it is of the view that the Tonna did not produce evidence that, at the time the Committee hearings were held, could have anticipated that criminal proceedings would be taken against him regarding the power station project.

It found that he had not provided sufficient evidence at the time that he was a suspect either.

The court said that in the absence of the proof, Tonna cannot be considered a victim of a breach of the fundamental right to a fair hearing. It said that the burden of proof was on him, and that it had to be evidence that at the time he was testifying before the committee he was reasonably suspected of having committed offences regarding the power station, the court said.

"It is true that during the second hearing before the Committee it was mentioned that there was a magisterial inquiry, and at one point the applicant's lawyer stated that his client was a suspect. However, the mere fact that there may have been a magisterial inquiry does not mean that the applicant was a suspect. Had he been a suspect when he testified during the inquiry, the Court understands that he would have been given the warning by the inquiring magistrate. There is no evidence that the applicant was given such a warning."

The court said that if in relation to the questions being put by the members of the Committee Tonna was of the view that he might in some way incriminate himself, he had the right not to answer, in terms of paragraph 19 of the Guide for Witnesses appearing before the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Representatives. The court said that this position was made clear by the Speaker in the ruling delivered on 19 April 2021.

The court overturned the parts of the original judgement regarding the fundamental right to fair trial being breached, now finding that it wasn't.