Nationalist MP Joe Giglio breached parliamentary ethics rules by failing to declare a professional interest in legislation that subsequently benefited two clients facing tax evasion charges, Standards Commissioner Joseph Azzopardi has concluded.
In a report submitted to parliament's Standards Committee, Azzopardi found that Giglio was obliged to disclose his interest before parliament voted on the legislation in August 2025. The MP, however, rejected the findings and refused to apologise.
The case concerns legislation allowing individuals facing criminal proceedings over tax evasion and related offences to settle their cases with the authorities, bringing the proceedings to an end.
The law subsequently benefited Nigel and Mikaela Scerri, whom Giglio represented in a criminal case involving alleged tax evasion and money laundering amounting to approximately €1.5 million. Following its implementation, the couple reached a settlement with the tax commissioner, resulting in the criminal proceedings against them being dropped.
The bill completed its remaining parliamentary stages during a single sitting on 4 August 2025 and became law on 11 August. Parliamentary records showed that Giglio did not declare an interest during the sitting, although he voted against the legislation.
The investigation followed a complaint filed by Matthew Caruana Galizia on 13 April 2026. He argued that Giglio should have disclosed his professional interest, noting that the MP had been representing the couple since at least January 2025, months before the bill was introduced.
Giglio rejected the allegations, maintaining that the legislation was general in nature and was not designed to benefit specific individuals. He argued that requiring MPs to declare professional interests whenever legislation could affect their clients would impose unreasonable restrictions on practising professionals, including lawyers and doctors.
Azzopardi dismissed this argument, distinguishing between legislation affecting large sections of society and measures providing substantial benefits to a narrower group.
He concluded that Giglio's clients had a "direct and substantial interest" in the legislation, which could spare individuals facing tax-related criminal proceedings from potential penalties, including imprisonment.
The commissioner stressed that Giglio could have declared his professional interest without identifying his clients or disclosing confidential information. He also found that voting against the bill did not remove the obligation to declare an interest.
Azzopardi nevertheless considered the breach relatively minor, proposing that the case be resolved through a written apology and a commitment not to repeat the breach of Article 5(2)(a) of the MPs' Code of Ethics.
In a letter dated 29 October, Giglio refused to apologise, maintaining his disagreement with the commissioner's interpretation of the rules. He also questioned the finding, particularly since Azzopardi had acknowledged that the relevant provision was open to interpretation.
The refusal prompted the commissioner to refer the report to parliament's Standards Committee.
Azzopardi also called for stronger parliamentary ethics rules, noting that existing disclosure obligations are limited to legislation and do not cover other activities, such as parliamentary questions. He said the rules also inadequately address MPs' personal interests and those of family members or other close associates.
A proposed new Code of Ethics, presented by government in March 2026, sought to extend disclosure requirements. However, the proposal fell when parliament was dissolved ahead of the May general election.
The commissioner urged government to clarify and strengthen the rules before presenting a revised code, arguing that clearer obligations would improve public confidence in parliament's integrity.