The Internal Audit and Investigations Board has recommended that the Auditor General should investigate in greater detail allegations that have been made about the permanent secretary governance and internal audit Rita Schembri.
The board said that, in the interests of justice, the auditor general should be asked to conclude the report at the earliest, possibly within three weeks.
Following allegations in the media about Ms Schembri, Ms Schembri wrote to the auditor general requested that she is investigated.
She asked the AG to scrutisinse her alleged personal participation in the Dalli investigation, allegations by Philip Rizzo in Malta Today, any resulting conflict of interest in her work and if any closed or pending personal civil cases had, in anyway, impinged on her work at the IAID.
The board held two meetings, which Ms Schembri, who is also part of the board did not attend. However, she was interviewed during the first meeting on November 16. The other meeting, which took the form of a video conference, was held on November 21.
The board reviewed press reports, the chair’s exposition of the various meetings he had with Ms Schembri since the press report first came to light, an e-mail from Media Today managing editor, MFSA documentation and pack provided by Ms Schembri, a letter form Colin Perkins, a report drawn up by Ms Schembri and a log of mails exchanges between Ms Schembri and individuals mentioned in the press reports.
The board said that the chair informed the board that, earlier this month, Mita were called in by the permanent secretary as she alleged a possible hacking and/or illegal hoarding of information held at the IAID.
Seeing that Mita had a log of mail exchanges, the board requested, and obtained a sample of these logs.
The chair informed the board that in view of the on-going evaluation, so as not to prejudice any future process, he officially requested that Mita keep a copy of the email back up takes as from January.
In its report the board said it was conscious of its limitations and it did not have the right to call in witnesses, administer oaths or demand information from third parties in the hypothetical event that said third parties refuse to cooperate.