The prosecution had failed to put forward “one single shred of evidence” against a former Enemalta high-ranking official, a magistrate declared on Friday in no uncertain terms.
Anthony Bonello, 64, former head of human resources at Enemalta, was recently targeted by criminal action over allegations of misappropriation, fraud and misuse of credit cards dating back several years before 2014.
Yet upon the evidence put forward, magistrate Claire Stafrace Zammit, presiding over the proceedings, declared squarely that “the entire case had been structured upon conjectures and distorted proof as to what had or had not been done by the accused”.
Evidence produced served to paint a totally different picture of the accused
The Court pointed out that, indeed, all evidence produced served to paint a totally different picture of the accused who, throughout his term as head of human resources had always held his workers’ interests close to his heart.
Mr Bonello had always done his best to maintain a healthy relationship with all unions, particularly those which shielded the rights of Enemalta employees, the court observed.
Indeed, two union officials testified in court as to how Mr Bonello often invited them out for a meal to discuss work-related issues or as an expression of gratitude for their contribution towards the drawing up of some workers’ agreement, the court noted.
As for the alleged offences, the court had heard Enemalta chairman Frederick Azzopardi explain how Mr Bonello had enjoyed a €500 allowance and a Visa card to cover work expenses.
Even the executive head for finances of the company had testified that there had never been any issues with regards to expenditures made by Mr Bonello, the court observed.
While the accused himself had supplied to the police with plausible explanations in a clear manner, investigators had failed to question those involved, the court noted, adding that it was only when witnesses were called to testify that the whole picture fell into place.
In the light of such circumstances, the court pronounced an acquittal concluding that the prosecution had not succeeded in casting “the slightest doubt” upon the accused who should never have been charged in the first place.
Lawyer Joseph Giglio was defence counsel.