The process of the Vitals magisterial inquiry is a test case in bad governance

The Vitals magisterial inquiry, which roped into it several politicians and public officials, has raised serious concerns, not just about the subject matter, but about the independence of our institutions and the integrity of the judiciary in the process. One might expect interference from government structures, but absurdly, that is not the case here. The interference comes from elsewhere, and that makes the situation even more alarming.

What we are currently witnessing is not justice, but a politically stormed spectacle masked as legality and judicial independence. The true purpose of the inquiry – scrutinising the governance surrounding the Vitals contract – has been completely eclipsed by the incompetence of its execution throughout the process. It is appalling to learn that there are no formal governance structures administering how experts are chosen for magisterial inquiries. No contracts have even been drafted between the experts and the court. Not even terms of references. Apparently, they operate in a vacuum and are freely allowed to rake millions. Unequivocally put, the process of the magisterial inquiry was flawed from the outset. In one of the most sensitive inquiries, individuals involved in house searches, were not even officially appointed by the court at the time of stepping foot into the private house of our former prime minister. This isn’t a procedural hiccup. It is a serious breach that undermines the very legitimacy of the inquiry.

The facts speak for themselves. When questioned, one of the claimed experts, Andy Coles, admitted that at the time of the search of former Prime Minister Dr Joseph Muscat’s home in Burmarrad, he had no official appointment. He was in Malta for another matter altogether. Coles was casually brought into the search by his friend, Dr Sam Sittlington of The Fraud Company Limited. There was no vetting and no formal designation or due diligence, and worse, no legal basis. Just a phone call. This is certainly blatant abuse of power. Strangely, it reminded me of the modus operandi of Giovanni Kessler, the former head of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Kessler was convicted by a Belgian court for illegally recording a phone conversation during the investigation that led to the resignation of former EU Health Commissioner John Dalli.​ Even more damning, when testifying, Coles said that he does not recall swearing under oath on his involvement and the findings. Yet, media reported that the official record signed by the magistrate states otherwise. This is not a clerical error. It is credibility bankruptcy. This is what happens when appointed experts operate with no legal and governance structures in place. They behave irrational like a byproduct of a casino.

Surely, this is not how justice is administered in functioning democracies. And not how governance is overseen. This is how pariah states operate. And let’s not forget that Dr Sittlington is currently in the process of liquidating his own company, together with several other experts linked to this magisterial inquiry. Now imagine the reverse was true. A Maltese official in the UK, on unrelated business, joins a search of a former British prime minister’s residence, simply because a friend invited him through a phone call. No legal basis, no protocols, and no contracts drafted. The public outrage would be instant. Media headlines would burst. Institutional heads would roll. And an inquiry would be launched within days. In Malta, however, this is tolerated. Why? Because the independence of our institutions has been elevated to a central system, which is not serving the rights of individuals for justice but the hidden agenda of a diktat. Even the timing of the publishing of the Vitals magisterial inquiry, which occurred on the eve of the MEP elections, raised eyebrows. Supposedly, the experts were brought in to prepare a fact-finding report, not to execute politically-loaded searches. The line between fact-finding and institutional overreach has been crushed. Personally, I believe that what they were interested in was just technological devices for other matters.

Then comes Harbinson Forensics Limited of Jeremy Harbinson. Among those sub-contracted for the magisterial inquiry features Zara Melody, a so-called IT expert, who later turned out to have no prior experience in digital examination, other than living off diving lessons for several years, before briefly joining an IT apprenticeship in early 2023. Clearly, it transpires that most of the experts, weren’t just unqualified, they were fundamentally unfit for purpose. Frankly, their role was to draft an investigative report, not to participate in political witch-hunts through house searches and raids, at seven o’clock in the morning during schooldays. However, there seems to be several risk takers around, who took a chance to become millionaires. Well, that comes with responsibilities, though.

Now, we also discovered that Jeremy Harbinson has refused to testify. Worse still, there is no registered address where he can be served as a witness. It is an entire charade. Harbinson’s excuses to not travel to Malta – after freeloading years of the best hotels to carry out the investigations – have ranged from caring for an ill spouse, to an Efimovan moment of concerns about personal safety and to claiming that his report was never written for intended prosecutions. He is even demanding monetary compensation to testify. Yes, you are reading well. He expects to be paid to repeat what he wrote. Utterly pathetic! If witnesses can dodge justice so easily, then, what is the purpose of the inquiry? What message are we sending to the public?

Then there’s also Miroslava Milenovic, the Serbian national involved in creative accounting. She does not hold a valid accountant warrant, and certainly she is not a forensic financial expert. Milenovic incredibly became a qualified auditor in just five months. Yes, five months not five years, like all of us. Milenovic is either a prodigy or a delusional academic fraudster. In any functioning judicial system, she would have been disqualified from the outset. Instead, she remained involved. I have refrained from speaking about the Vitals inquiry, even during the European elections campaign, because I wanted to understand the facts. However, when public trust is destroyed, silence is not an option. The damage inflicted is not merely legal but institutional and systemic. This entire episode sends a chilling message, that due process is indeed selective, and accountability is optional. And if it can happen to a former prime minister, it can happen to any one of us.

The irony is glaring. In the past three years, we have even prosecuted citizens for failures in corporate governance. Yet, the same governance principles were ditched in the handling of the process of this magisterial inquiry. What happened to the accountability of the judiciary? This isn’t just bad governance but a destabilising political act. It damages Malta’s reputation and investors’ confidence. These are not the legal reforms we were promised, especially when the Venice Commission interfered a few years back. This is not the legal model we want to pass on to future generations. The truth is that the recent magisterial inquiry reform, no matter its opposition, was desperately needed to introduce a governance structure. Undoubtedly, those involved must provide answers, not to politicians, but to the public.

If this is what justice looks like in 2025, then those behind this farce are failing the people, failing the institutions, and failing Malta’s future.