The man behind an Old Mint Street property expropriation saga has denied, while under oath, calling his notary to speed up a propery purchase the day after The Sunday Times of Malta revealed the deal.

“I don’t read newspapers. How would that article affect me?” insisted Marco Gaffarena when taking the witness stand under cross-examination in civil proceedings instituted two years ago against the Cefai family, in a bid to force the sale of their part-ownership of the palazzo at 36, Old Mint Street, Valletta.

The article in question had featured in The Sunday Times of Malta in May 2015, wherein it was revealed that the government had paid €1.65 million to Mr Gaffarena for part-ownership of the Valletta property, which he had bought for a fraction of that price just weeks prior to the deal.

That revelation had allegedly galvanized Mr Gaffarena into action, a fact which Tanya Sciberras Camilleri, one of the lawyers assisting the respondents in the suit before the First Hall, Civil Court, sought to determine when cross-examining the applicant.

Read: Gaffarena expropriation struck down by the courts

“Did you call Notary Angela Bezzina the very next day after publication of the article?” Dr Sciberras Camilleri asked.

“She called me to tell me that the papers were ready and that the contract could be signed,” Mr Gaffarena replied, insisting on his version of events even when faced with the Notary’s affidavit, in which she had declared that “the day after the article on the Sunday Times, he had called me.”

A date for the deed of sale was fixed for some two weeks later, well ahead of the expiry date of the promise of sale, and when the contract was not signed on that date, Mr Gaffarena had taken the matter to court, Dr Sciberras Camilleri went on.

“I went for the contract but they didn’t show up,” Mr Gaffarena explained.

“Did they call you beforehand?” Dr Sciberras Camilleri pressed on.

“No, they never spoke to me. They only called the notary,” Mr Gaffarena went on, also failing to recall whether he had called one of the co-owners, David Cefai, four days before the contract date.

He also failed to recall whether he had called Mr Cefai from abroad after receiving a call from his notary informing him that the sellers were unwilling to proceed.

“I recall none of this,” the witness declared.

The case continues in January.

Lawyer Keith Bonnici assisted the applicant.