Updated at 9.15pm with Justice Ministry statement - Former FIAU investigator Jonathan Ferris has been asked by a whistleblowing unit within the Prime Minister's office to reveal all the information he has in hand before he is given whistleblower protection, a judicial protest by his lawyers says.
In the protest, Mr Ferris’ lawyers say the former investigator has information about corruption, abuse of power and money laundering which took place over the past few years and was still taking place.
The protest says the external whistle-blowing unit within the OPM has asked for all the information "relative to the disclosure".
Mr Ferris could not yet collaborate with the authorities to help reveal, investigate and prosecute these crimes before he was given whistleblower protection.
Without the protection, Mr Ferris could face a five-year jail-term and a €100,000 fine for blowing the whistle on any corruption he may have witnessed during his time at the FIAU.
Mr Ferris claims in the protest that the way the government had treated other whistleblowers contrasted with the way he was being treated.
In 2014, the Attorney General had “hurriedly” granted immunity from prosecution to over 60 people involved in the smart meter tampering racket, the protest says.
The protest says the Attorney General was discriminating against Mr Ferris, who had a far stronger argument to be granted whistleblower protection than those involved in the smart meter racket.
Such behaviour by a government was not acceptable in a democratic society built upon the rule of law, the protest said.
It called on Mr Ferris to immediately be given whistleblower protection.
The protest was signed by lawyers Andrew Borg Cardona, Jason Azzopardi and Roselyn Borg Knight.
JUSTICE MINISTRY REACTION: PROPER PROCEDURE FOLLOWED
In a reaction, the Justice Ministry said whistleblower protection was provided according to established procedure emanating from the legislation agreed upon unanimously by Government and Opposition in Parliament. This procedure had been adopted in all requests brought forward, including that lodged by Mr Ferris.
"The whole concept of whistleblower protection is based on the fact that the person who claims to be a whistleblower makes a disclosure," it said.
"There cannot be a whistleblower without a disclosure and one certainly cannot demand whistleblower protection without revealing what one has to disclose even if this is done confidentially to the whistleblower reporting unit or officer. The Protection of the Whistleblower Act provides for this," the ministry argued.
The cases concerning the tampering of electricity meters mentioned by Mr. Ferris had nothing to do with the Protection of the Whistleblower Act but the certificates of immunity from proceedings in those cases were issued under the Permanent Commission Against Corruption Act upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Police and after the persons concerned had made statements to the Police.
The Attorney General has nothing to do with initial reception of disclosures under the Protection of the Whistleblower Act and Mr. Ferris’ claim that he is being discriminated against by the Attorney General are outrightly calumnious.