A sitting of the Public Accounts Committee which was due to question Frank Sammut about oil procurement procedures was put off today after his lawyer said he would contest a ruling by the Speaker on the proceedings.

Mr Sammut, one of the men at the heart of the oil procurement scandal, was called to appear to answer questions as part of the committee's discussion into  procurement irregularities revealed in a report by the Auditor-General.

Mr Sammut is currently undergoing court proceedings, where he has been accused of corruption in the granting of oil procurement contracts.

At the opening of this evening's committee meeting, lawyer Joe Giglio said the accused had the fundamental right to remain silent, and Mr Sammut was undergoing proceedings in court about the same issues which were being discussed by the committee.

He noted that the Speaker last week ruled in the case of co-accused Tancred Tabone that Mr Tabone had to appear before the committee but may opt not to reply to questions which could incriminate him, in which case the questions had to be referred to the Speaker.

Dr Giglio said he disagreed that when the witness, in this case the accused, refused to testify, matters had to be referred to the Speaker. The Constitution and the European Convention were higher authorities. The Speaker could not decide what could incriminate the witness and he therefore intended to contest the ruling.

The Parliamentary Secretary for Justice, Owen Bonnici, said this was uncharted territory, but he underlined the importance of Parliament under the Constitution. He suggested a brief interruption of proceedings for deliberations.

Dr Giglio said that while the committee was bound by the ruling of the Speaker, the Constitution was higher than the Speaker and the right of the accused to be silent was absolute. The Speaker had no discretion on this right.

The sitting was interrupted at 7.08 p.m. and then adjourned to February 19 to give time to Dr Giglio to contest the ruling, if he intends to do so.