The government has formally denied allegations that privileged conversations between lawyers and their clients at the Corradino Correctional Facility were monitored, intercepted or recorded, filing a counter judicial protest in response to action taken by the Chamber of Advocates.

The dispute centres on claims made by the Chamber of Advocates, which on Wednesday ordered all lawyers practising before Malta's courts, tribunals and boards to refrain from providing legal services on Monday, June 22, in protest at what it described as a breach of legal professional privilege.

The Chamber's directive followed a judicial protest filed on June 15 against the Prime Minister, the ministers responsible for Home Affairs and Justice, the permanent secretaries of the two ministries, the head of the Security Service and the State Advocate.

In its protest, the Chamber said it had become aware of alleged "surveillance, monitoring, interception and recordings" of privileged conversations between lawyers and their clients at the Corradino prison. It claimed that testimony had emerged indicating the existence of an organised system of interceptions in prison meeting rooms that made no distinction between meetings involving lawyers and those involving other visitors.

The Chamber argued that legal professional privilege is a fundamental principle protected by the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and Maltese law, and described the allegations as a serious attack on the administration of justice.

However, in a counter protest filed on Thursday, the government and the other respondents categorically rejected the allegations.

While agreeing with the Chamber on the importance of lawyer-client privilege, the respondents stated that they "strongly reject" claims that an organised and abusive interception system existed at the Corradino Correctional Facility.

The counter protest further states that the alleged "extraordinary facts" and purported new evidence referred to by the Chamber are unfounded.

The Head of the Security Service, Joseph Bugeja, is quoted in the filing as confirming that "there never was a system of interception and surveillance on privileged consultations between lawyers and their clients."

The respondents said that, in light of this position, none of the measures requested by the Chamber needed to be implemented.

The government also referred to previous correspondence sent to the Chamber's president in which it had already denied the allegations. It reiterated that any lawyers who believe their clients' interests were prejudiced have legal remedies available to them under the law.

The counter protest additionally warns the Chamber to exercise caution in its public statements, arguing that it too has responsibilities towards the administration of justice.

The respondents said it was not fitting for such a long-established institution to be used to attack the country's institutions or cast doubt on the integrity of Malta's judicial system on the basis of what they described as "completely false conjecture".

The government therefore rejected all the Chamber's claims and requests and called on it to desist from pursuing the matter further.