A former Enemalta chairman accused of involvement in the oil procurement scandal had his rights breached when he was ordered to testify before a parliamentary committee while criminal proceedings against him were under way, the Constitutional Court has ruled.

Tancred Tabone was called to testify before the Public Accounts Committee in December 2013 when the committee was discussing the Auditor General’s report on Enemalta’s fuel procurement methods.

Ten months previously, Mr Tabone had been arraigned in court and accused of corruption, fraud and money laundering in connection with Enemalta oil procurement. Those criminal proceedings were still ongoing.

Mr Tabone had been presented with a copy of the Guide for Witnesses before the PAC, published in 2011, which listed the consequences faced by any person who refusing to testify before the committee without a legally valid excuse.

After invoking his right to silence before the PAC, the Speaker of the House, Anglu Farrugia, had ruled that when a witness raised an objection to any particular question put to him, on the ground of self-incrimination, the final decision to allow the question or otherwise was to be taken by the Speaker.

Moreover, the Speaker had ruled that neither parliament’s rulings nor its guidelines were subject to scrutiny by the courts and that any interference in parliamentary procedures would amount to a breach of privilege.

However, in a judgment delivered by Madam Justice Anna Felice, presiding over the constitutional suit, Mr Tabone’s claims were upheld and a breach of rights was declared.

The court found that being called to testify before the parliamentary committee while still subject to concurrent criminal proceedings, amounted to a breach of the applicant’s right to a fair hearing and his absolute right to silence - as did the ruling handed down by the Speaker.

The Guide for Witnesses granting the Speaker the faculty to decide upon objections to questions put to the applicant, likewise ran counter to the applicant’s rights.

As for the claim that live broadcasts of the PAC sittings breached Mr Tabone's rights by creating prejudicial pre-trial publicity, Madam Justice Felice observed that this was not so. The right to a fair hearing was not breached by the simple fact that the hearings were broadcast live, but in the case of Mr Tabone, it had been certain remarks voiced by Justice Minister Owen Bonnici which had constituted the breach.

During one particular hearing, when George Farrugia was testifying before the PAC, Dr Bonnici had remarked “That you gave them (the money) to him (Mr Tabone) I have absolutely no doubt and that he took them I have no doubt either.”

Such comments by the minister during a live broadcast could possibly have suggested to the general public that Dr Bonnici considered Mr Tabone to be guilty of the offences, even though criminal proceedings in his regard were still ongoing.

The court observed that the minister had not used “all the discretion and circumspection necessary if the presumption of innocence is to be respected,” the court declared.

It ordered that the court hearing the criminal case should be made fully aware of this constitutional decision by way of remedy for Mr Tabone’s breach of rights.