Former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat was heard expressing frustration in court on Wednesday over delays attributed to the prosecution in the ongoing Vitals hospitals corruption case.
Muscat stands accused of corruption, among other charges, linked to the part-privatisation of three public hospitals when he was prime minister between 2013 and 2019.
Defence lawyers repeatedly criticised the prosecution over delays in the ongoing Vitals hospitals case, particularly its continued efforts to secure the testimony of former magisterial inquiry expert Jeremy Harbinson.
“We’ve had enough now, this is not on,” Muscat was heard saying towards the prosecution, as several of the accused and their lawyers voiced their dissatisfaction with the pace of proceedings.
Defence lawyers repeatedly criticised the prosecution over delays in the ongoing Vitals hospitals case, particularly its continued efforts to secure the testimony of former magisterial inquiry expert Jeremy Harbinson. “We’ve had enough now, this is not on,” Muscat was heard saying towards the prosecution, as several of the accused and their lawyers voiced their dissatisfaction with the pace of proceedings.
The sitting before Magistrate Lara Lanfranco was marked by repeated objections from defence lawyers, who questioned why the prosecution continued pursuing an expert who had previously indicated that he was unwilling and unable to testify.
The defence also raised concerns over delays involving the translation of a response in German received through letters rogatory and the handling of approximately 90 terabytes of digital evidence gathered during the magisterial inquiry.
Lawyers Franco Debono, Edward Gatt, Charles Mercieca, Vince Galea, and Gianella De Marco were among those who challenged the prosecution's handling of outstanding evidence, arguing that the proceedings could not continue to be prolonged by unresolved issues involving expert witnesses and documentation.
Defence questions prosecution's insistence on Harbinson
Much of the frustration centred on Jeremy Harbinson, whose testimony remains outstanding despite repeated attempts to secure his appearance. Lawyer Vince Galea questioned why the prosecution continued insisting on Harbinson's testimony when the expert had already indicated in 2025 that he did not wish to, and could not, testify.
Galea argued that Harbinson had relinquished his professional warrant as an accountant and had also raised concerns that giving evidence could expose him to self-incrimination. He accused the prosecution of deliberately prolonging proceedings by continuing to pursue the expert despite these circumstances.
Moreover, he urged the court to take a firmer approach with the prosecution, pointing out that the proceedings had already been ongoing for approximately two and a half years.
He also referred to the Constitutional Court's powers in cases involving breaches of fundamental rights, arguing that prolonged proceedings could justify an order requiring the prosecution to close its evidence. He also presented a Criminal Court judgment delivered by Judge Consuelo Scerri Herrera concerning court-appointed expert Miroslava Milenovic.
Lawyer Edward Gatt also criticised the prosecution's handling of the case, arguing that two of the most important experts involved in the case remained unavailable, with one being sought and another reportedly under police investigation. Gatt insisted that Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg should be summoned to explain why the prosecution continued pursuing Harbinson's testimony despite the difficulties encountered.
“This is happening because of who these people are,” Gatt told the court.
“If we had a ‘nobody’, this wouldn’t happen, but because of who we have, nobody wants to take a decision,” he maintained.
The defence repeatedly questioned how long the accused would be expected to wait for the prosecution to conclude presenting its evidence.
Defence demands clarity on remaining evidence
The continued uncertainty prompted several lawyers to demand a clearer indication of what evidence remained outstanding.
Lawyer Charles Mercieca requested that the prosecution establish, by the next sitting, precisely which witnesses and documents it still intended to present, arguing that this would allow proceedings to move forward.
Lawyer Gianella De Marco similarly pressed for clarification on the outstanding evidence.
Magistrate Lanfranco intervened, explaining that the remaining matters concerned Harbinson's testimony and the translation of documentation received through letters rogatory.
The court subsequently ordered that a representative of the Central Authority be summoned to provide further information about communications and efforts undertaken to locate Harbinson and secure his testimony. The representative is expected to clarify what steps have been taken and what responses, if any, have been received.
Translator issue causes further delays
Earlier in the sitting, there were interruptions concerning a court-appointed translator who had been tasked with translating a response in German received through letters.
The prosecution informed the court that the translator could not attend Wednesday's sitting, prompting objections from the defence, which argued that no valid explanation had been provided for her absence.
Upon learning that the translator was in another courtroom, Hall 5, defence lawyers requested that police officers bring her to Hall 10 to explain the situation directly to the magistrate why she had failed to carry out her duties.
The exchange prompted Joseph Muscat to raise his voice, expressing frustration over what he considered yet another delay in the proceedings.
“We've had enough now; this is not on,” he remarked. “We're all tired,” lawyer Franco Debono said, arguing that the accused were fully aware of what was taking place and calling on the court to take stronger action.
The translator subsequently appeared before Magistrate Lanfranco and explained that she was dealing with a considerable backlog of work. She expressed uncertainty over whether she could undertake the substantial volume of translations required. After examining the workload, the magistrate decided that another translator should be appointed to complete the assignment.
The defence requested that it be informed whether the replacement translator accepted the work, to avoid further uncertainty.
Dispute over €1,700 monthly storage fee for inquiry data
Questions were also raised over the continued storage of approximately 90 terabytes of digital evidence gathered during the magisterial inquiry into the hospitals concession.
The court heard about correspondence dated 6 August from ANSEC, the company appointed to evaluate the digital material, which had contacted Magistrate Gabriella Vella seeking instructions on what should happen to the data.
The company wanted to establish whether the material should remain in its possession, be transferred to Malta or be destroyed.
The email also outlined the costs involved in retaining the information, with the court hearing that continued storage would cost approximately €1,700 per month.
Returning the material to Malta would involve additional expenses amounting to thousands of euros. Deputy Registrar Graziella Abela testified, confirming the delivery of correspondence originating from Magistrate Vella's office to Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg.
Abela testified that a sealed brown envelope had passed through the court registry before being delivered to the Attorney General.
Under cross-examination, she confirmed that she had not opened the envelope and could therefore not verify its contents.
Magistrate Lanfranco observed that if the prosecution confirmed that the data had already been preserved in the acts of the case, there would be no reason for the company to continue retaining it.
The defence argued that deciding what should happen to the material was a matter for the prosecution and insisted that defence lawyers should not be expected to intervene.
The prosecution, however, maintained that it had no direct communication with ANSEC and that instructions concerning the data could only be issued by Magistrate Gabriella Vella, who had appointed the company during the inquiry.
The disagreement prompted further criticism from the defence, which argued that responsibility for the evidence should not continually be shifted onto the court.
Lawyer Edward Gatt described the time being spent on such matters as unnecessary, insisting that more pressing issues concerning the availability of key expert witnesses remained unresolved.
As the sitting drew to a close, defence lawyers maintained that the continued uncertainty surrounding Harbinson's testimony and other outstanding evidence was preventing the compilation from progressing. Magistrate Lanfranco informed the parties that she would deliver a decree in chambers on the remaining requests made by the defence.
The case was adjourned to 1 December at 11:30am.
AG lawyers Francesco Refalo, Shelby Aquilina and Rebekah Gatt are prosecuting the Vitals case.
Lawyers Vince Galea, Giannella De Marco, Franco Debono, Arthur Azzopardi, Stefano Filletti, Edward Gatt, Charles Mercieca, Stephen Tonna Lowell, Ishmael Psaila, Kathleen Calleja Grima, Shazoo Ghaznavi, Shaun Zammit, Jessica Formosa, Luke Dalli, Mark Vassallo, Alex Scerri Herrera, Joseph Mizzi, Jonathan Thompson, Chris Cilia, and Etienne Borg Ferranti are representing the defendants.