Bical cases can be heard by one judge - Chief Justice

An order issued by the Chief Justice for all pending cases concerning the BICAL case to be heard by one judge was not in violation of the fundamental human right to a fair hearing.

This decision was delivered by Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon in a constitutional application lodged by Cecil Pace against the Prime Minister and the Attorney General.

Mr Pace told the court that he was a party to around 20 cases which were pending before the courts. These cases had been filed against the various controllers appointed for the Bank of Industry Commerce and Agriculture Limited (BICAL).

With regard to 14 of these cases, some of which went back to 1986 and 1989, it had been decided that a number of court sittings would be held in a short period of time so that they would be decided fast.

However, one of the cases, dating back to 1989, was pending before Mr Justice Giannino Caruana Demajo where, according to Mr Pace, the case was not leading to a hearing within a reasonable period of time.

In June 2010 the Chief Justice had ordered that all the cases filed by Mr Pace in connection with BICAL were to be heard by only one judge, namely Mr Justice Caruana Demajo.

This decision, said Mr Pace, was in violation of his fundamental human right to a fair hearing. He said there was no reason for the cases to be assigned to one judge and he requested the court to rule that his rights had been violated.

In his judgment,t Mr Justice Zammit McKeon rejected defendants' submission that Mr Pace had other remedies available to him through the ordinary law.

Mr Pace could only have challenged the judge to abstain from hearing the cases, but none of the grounds for a challenge were applicable to this case. Therefore, Mr Pace had only the option to recourse to a court of constitutional jurisdiction.

The court then went on to dismiss Mr Pace's contention and to rule that his fundamental human rights had not been violated.

The Chief Justice's decision in this matter did not affect the legal rights and guarantees which formed the right to a fair hearing.

Each of the pending cases would continue to be heard by Mr Justice Caruana Demajo from the stage they had reached before the previous judge. Furthermore, all evidence produced to date and all rulings given by the previous judge would remain in force.

The court therefore dismissed Mr Pace's constitutional claim