The courts have a right to review the procedures adopted before the House of Representatives and its committees, a constitutional court has declared in a case filed by former Enemalta Chairman Tancred Tabone against the Speaker of Parliament and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

The issue arose in the wake of the oil procurement scandal which led to investigations being undertaken by the Public Accounts Committee, as well as criminal proceedings being instituted against the man chairing Enemalta Corporation at the time.

Mr Tabone filed a constitutional application wherein he claimed that proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee could potentially violate his right to a fair trial.

The First Hall, Civil Court, presided by Madame Justice Anna Felice, heard how on December 11, 2013 the plaintiff had been summoned to testify before the Public Accounts Committee on the Auditor General's report regarding Enemalta's fuel procurement process.

At the sitting, Mr Tabone had refused to answer questions, invoking his right to silence, since anything said at that stage could potentially violate his right to a fair hearing before the courts in criminal proceedings instituted against him in February 2013.

The plaintiff had been arraigned on charges of corruption, fraud and money laundering in relation to the oil procurement process by Enemalta under his chairmanship.

Before the civil court, the plaintiff argued that his right to a fair trial was already being potentially prejudiced by the fact that parliamentary committee sittings were transmitted live. This, the court was told, created an element of 'prejudicial pre-trial publicity'.

The defendants claimed that the courts had no right to review the procedures adopted by parliament. Reference was made to a ruling by the Speaker wherein it was stated that it would be up to the Speaker to decide whether a particular question put by the committee could potentially violate the witness's fundamental rights and so be disallowed.

The court rejected this preliminary plea of the defendants, declaring that "the constitution grants Parliament the right to regulate its own procedures, however this is not an absolute right.....but a right limited by the court."

The court ordered the continuation of the case upon the merits.