Ousted Sliema mayor Nikki Dimech told police that Nationalist MP and businessman Robert Arrigo had asked the local council to prefer “his people” over others for council jobs, a court heard yesterday.

Mr Dimech made the allegation in one of four statements he gave to the police, Inspector Angelo Gafà testified yesterday before Magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit in the compilation of evidence against the former mayor, who stands charged with soliciting a bribe.

The 31-year-old former PN mayor is accused of asking Stephen Buhagiar, formerly employed as Mr Arrigo’s driver, for a five to 10 per cent commission on his €1,200 monthly salary in return for the job of contracts manager with the Sliema local council.

Mr Buhagiar said he was shocked by the request and refused but he still got the job. Some six months later, he was dismissed by the council during a sitting for which Mr Dimech was absent. He complained about what he felt was an unfair dismissal to the Director of Local Government, Martin Bugelli and it was here that he made his allegation about the bribe solicited by Mr Dimech. Mr Bugelli in turn informed the police.

During police questioning, Mr Dimech claimed that shortly after the council decided on the dismissal, Mr Buhagiar had met him together with Mr Arrigo. The two were trying to persuade him to reverse the council’s decision and, during the meeting, in which another PN councillor, Yves Calì, was present, tensions began to rise and Mr Calì and Mr Arrigo shouted at each other. The two, according to Mr Dimech, then sorted out the matter at party level.

Mr Dimech claimed that Mr Arrigo had instructed the councillors to “favour his people” for council jobs.

These claims were included in one of the four statements Mr Dimech made to the police and Mr Gafà noted in court these were conflicting and even diametrically opposed to each other on some points.

The officer said that when Mr Dimech was first summoned for questioning he admitted asking for a commission. The conversation was not recorded, the inspector explained, adding it was normal practice not to record interrogations unless they were dealing with very serious cases.

The interrogation continued and when Mr Dimech was making his first written statement, he insisted it was Mr Buhagiar who offered him a commission in return for the job, a claim he repeated in a confrontation between the two. However, Mr Dimech doubled back again in a second statement later that afternoon, when he again admitted he was the one to ask for a cut.

When asked why he had done so, Mr Dimech refused to answer, this being the only question he did not reply to in all four statements produced as evidence in court. Then, in a third statement, Mr Dimech returned to the version of having been offered money, Mr Gafà testified.

The officer also said in court that in the course of a conversation at the police headquarters, which was not recorded, Mr Dimech admitted he had an expensive drug habit that cost him €4,500 to €5,000 a month. When asked what drug he took, Mr Dimech did not answer but pressed a nostril and mimicked sniffing a line.

He refused assistance to overcome his addiction, saying he could look after himself as he had done in the past.

Yet, when it came to putting all this in a statement, Mr Gafà said Mr Dimech took everything back, saying he did not presently have a drug problem but did so in the past. He even disclosed he had been investigated over the fatal overdose of a close friend 10 years ago, when he spent more than a day in custody but was then released.

Mr Dimech was asked about claims he had made in the media that he had signed his admission under duress. (Mr Dimech had insisted in the press he had signed the statement where the request for a bribe was mentioned because he suffered a panic attack and was refused his inhaler.)

The officer insisted in court yesterday that what Mr Dimech had told the press was incorrect and that he had offered Mr Dimech his inhaler when it was brought to him by a police sergeant.

With regard to medication, an issue that was also brought up, the inspector said he could not let him have it because he did not have a doctor’s prescription. However, Mr Dimech said he did not need anything when asked.

When reminded about this, Mr Dimech said he had not accepted the medication because it could be used against him. However, when asked what he meant, he simply replied he was not familiar with police procedure.

Mr Gafà said he had been informed by officers on duty at the lockup that Mr Dimech had been placed in one of the section’s larger rooms and seemed relaxed and even had a nap.

With regard to claims he was not allowed to see his lawyer, Michael Sciriha, Mr Gafà said the two spent a quarter of an hour on the phone after the police did their utmost to contact the lawyer who was abroad.

Under cross-examination, defence lawyers Stephen Tonna Lowell and Joe Giglio asked the officer whether it was true he had denied Mr Dimech a chance to tell the truth.

The officer confirmed that, after the first statement, Mr Dimech had asked him for five minutes to tell him what really happened. However, he did not accept, because, at that point in time, he felt he needed to confront Mr Buhagiar.

The defence team also asked whether Mr Dimech was undressed in the lockup and the officer denied that at some point Mr Dimech had been stark naked, adding it was normal procedure to search suspects.

The case will continue in two months’ time.