Mr Justice Lino Farrugia Sacco, who is facing an impeachment motion, insisted yesterday he was not given a fair hearing.

He added that the justice watchdog did not even allow him to produce witnesses in his defence.

Thus, he argued, his basic fundamental human right to a fair hearing had been violated, more so because he was not officially notified of the fresh impeachment motion filed against him in Parliament.

The judge was testifying before Madam Justice Lorraine Schembri Orland in a constitutional case he filed in the First Hall of the Civil Courts.

The case was filed against Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, who moved the motion, the Attorney General, the Commission for the Administration of Justice and Opposition leader Simon Busuttil.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco said he was not given the opportunity to defend himself, in violation of his fundamental right to a fair hearing.

He insisted that the commission had failed to notify him before it considered the motion and that a second decision by the watchdog confirming its original decision to impeach him without giving him a fair hearing was in breach of the principle of natural justice.

The Speaker, Anġlu Farrugia, ruled late in January that the original impeachment motion filed by former Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi in 2012 was “dead” because it had been moved during a previous legislature by a person who was no longer an MP. Also, that motion had never made it to Parliament’s agenda. Subsequently, Dr Muscat moved a fresh motion and this, according to law, was forwarded to the commission for investigation.

A few days later, the commission wrote to the Speaker saying its position remained unchanged, meaning there was prima facie proven misbehaviour by the judge when he stayed on as president of the Malta Olympic Committee. (He had subsequently decided not to run for office again.)

While testifying, the presiding judge pointed out that Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco should stick to facts rather than make legal arguments. At one point, a heated exchange ensued between Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco and lawyer Henri Mizzi, from the Attorney General’s office, after the judge took offence to a comment that he (the judge) should know better on what can be said while testifying.

Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco, who was assisted by his lawyer son David as well as by Judge Philip Sciberras and his lawyer son, Alex, said he was never notified about the second motion and when his lawyers wrote to the commission, it did not say what the motion consisted of but said “it would summon me if and when needed”.

He went through the correspondence exchanged between him and interested parties on the issue and pointed out that his lawyers had, on four occasions, raised the validity of Dr Gonzi’s original motion since he was no longer an MP. However, the judge added, all this had fallen on deaf ears.

He said he was only allowed to testify before the commission about the first motion after much insistence by his lawyers.

Dr Farrugia Sacco also claimed that some members of the justice watchdog were not present during the submissions on the case and one of them walked in four minutes before the sitting was over and another just two minutes.

“How can someone make a decision without first hearing what happened,” he asked, adding that, for all he knew, both members could have voted in his favour at the end but the fact remained that they were not present during the proceedings.

The judge also spoke about how there were “subtle differences” between the first and second motion.

He said he had been “misguided” by the commission in 2001 when he appeared before it over a complaint connected to the fact that he had been president of the European Small Nations Games. On that occasion, the commission had ruled there was nothing wrong.

Constantly quoting from various laws, Mr Justice Farrugia Sacco said that although the law regulated the behaviour of lawyers, there was no law regulating the behaviour of members of the judiciary.

Madam Justice Schembri Orland is expected to rule on the admissibility of a number of witnesses including President Emeritus George Abela and Attorney General Peter Grech.

The case continues later this month.