The First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional Jurisdiction has freed the State Advocate from a lawsuit filed by former OPM Chief of Staff Keith Schembri, while ruling the suit can proceed against three Opposition MPs and the Speaker of the House.
In a judgement delivered on 29 September 2026, Mr Justice Aaron Bugeja resolved several preliminary legal pleas filed by Schembri over alleged fundamental human rights breaches during his testimony before the parliamentary Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
Inside the 2023 Electrogas inquiry that triggered Schembri’s lawsuit
The dispute traces back to March and April 2023, when Schembri testified for nearly four hours over two sittings before the PAC during its examination of the National Audit Office (NAO) report into the Electrogas power station contracts awarded by Enemalta.
Following his second appearance on 18 April 2023, the three Opposition members on the committee, PN MPs Darren Carabott, David Agius, and Graham Bencini, filed a criminal complaint with the Police Commissioner.
They asked the police to investigate conflicting sworn statements given by Schembri, former Finance Minister Edward Scicluna, and former Deputy Police Commissioner Silvio Valletta regarding the project.
When sittings resumed on 25 April 2023, Schembri’s defence team challenged the three MPs, arguing that filing a criminal report in their personal capacities while continuing to sit on the panel created a clear conflict of interest and violated the principle of objective impartiality.
Escalation of the dispute
Schembri requested a ruling from Speaker Angelo Farrugia to suspend his testimony pending the outcome of the police investigation. However, Carabott, acting as PAC Chairman, informed him that under Standing Order 62, non-parliamentarians are barred from directly requesting rulings from the Speaker.
After no MP present adopted Schembri's request, Schembri declared he would refuse to answer further questions until constitutional court proceedings were determined.
In response, Carabott cautioned that refusing to answer questions could trigger contempt of Parliament proceedings under Chapter 113 of the Laws of Malta.
Speaker Farrugia subsequently issued a direction recommending the committee suspend Schembri's testimony until the constitutional court ruled on the matter.
Court’s rulings on preliminary exceptions
In evaluating the preliminary objections, Mr Justice Bugeja addressed whether the lawsuit remained live following the dissolution of parliament during the course of the proceedings.
Citing constitutional precedent and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) jurisprudence, the court ruled that the dissolution of Parliament alone does not strip an applicant of victim status or render a constitutional claim moot when the alleged rights violations occurred prior to the dissolution.
The court upheld the preliminary exception raised by the State Advocate, ruling that the office had no direct involvement in the matter, did not represent the legislative branch, and could not offer any remedy regarding internal parliamentary rules or MP conduct.
The State Advocate was consequently discharged from the lawsuit.
However, the court rejected preliminary pleas filed on behalf of Speaker Angelo Farrugia and the three PN MPs.
The judge ruled that the Speaker remains a proper respondent regarding claims challenging the application and interpretation of parliamentary rules.
Similarly, the judge ruled that MPs Carabott, Agius, and Bencini remain proper parties to defend their personal decision to file a police report against a witness appearing before them, as well as Carabott's specific enforcement of Standing Order 62 and Chapter 113 in his role as PAC Chairman.
The court's decision
In its ruling, the court officially discharged the State Advocate from the lawsuit after determining the office had no direct involvement or authority over internal parliamentary procedures. Conversely, it rejected preliminary pleas from Speaker Angelo Farrugia and PN MPs Darren Carabott, David Agius, and Graham Bencini, confirming them as proper respondents.
The judge also ruled that the dissolution of Parliament did not strip Keith Schembri of his victim status or render his human rights lawsuit moot.
Reaffirming its constitutional authority, the court asserted that parliamentary privilege and legislative autonomy cannot shield committee proceedings from judicial review when fundamental human rights breaches are alleged.
Furthermore, it determined that invoking Chapter 113 for contempt of Parliament triggers Article 6 ECHR fair trial protections due to its potential criminal penalties.