Malta’s Attorney General, Victoria Buttigieg, faces an unenviable and potentially career-defining dilemma, caught squarely between the rock of pursuing potential judicial misconduct and the hard place of preserving her office’s most significant ongoing prosecution.
The sworn testimony of expert Andrew ‘Andy’ Coles, directly contradicting Magistrate Gabriella Vella’s official Vitals inquiry report, has ignited a firestorm that poses an existential threat not just to the magistrate’s credibility, but to the entire criminal case against former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat and others – a case the AG herself initiated based solely on that very report.
The core issue? A glaring conflict of interest that forces the AG to choose: investigate the magistrate and risk fatally undermining the Vitals prosecution, or ignore the allegations and face accusations of shielding the judiciary to save her case.
Let’s recap: During court proceedings related to Vitals, Andy Coles, an expert cited in Magistrate Vella’s final report (proces verbal), testified under oath that he never met the Magistrate, nor swore any oath before her.
This flatly contradicts the official report signed by Vella, which states he did.
This discrepancy isn’t a mere footnote; it raises serious questions about potential falsification of an official judicial document – a crime under Article 188(1) of Malta’s Criminal Code, carrying potential jail time, from which magistrates have no immunity.
And Attorney General Buttigieg? Her role, as defined by Maltese law, is twofold and crucial here. She is the Head of Public Prosecutions, deciding who faces criminal charges for serious offenses, and she holds the power to issue Bills of Indictment, formally bringing individuals to trial based on the evidence.
In the Vitals case, the AG took the highly consequential step of indicting Muscat, his government subordinates, and others.
Critically, this decision was made entirely on the strength of Magistrate Vella’s inquiry findings.
The Police did not conduct their own separate, parallel investigation to corroborate the evidence before proceeding with charges; it adopted Vella’s conclusions lock, stock, and barrel.
This complete reliance now creates a massive conflict. If the AG acknowledges the gravity of Coles’ sworn testimony and initiates an investigation into Magistrate Vella for potential criminal falsity regarding the proces verbal, she implicitly casts doubt on the integrity of the entire Vitals inquiry report.
How can the state’s chief prosecutor simultaneously pursue charges based on a document while investigating its author for potentially including a falsity within it?
However, the alternative – ignoring Coles’ sworn testimony and the resulting calls for an investigation into the magistrate – is equally perilous for the AG. It would inevitably lead to accusations of applying justice selectively, of protecting a member of the judiciary to salvage a politically charged prosecution.
Failing to act on sworn testimony alleging potential criminal conduct by a Magistrate would severely damage public trust in the AG’s impartiality and the principle of equality before the law. It would paint a picture of an Attorney General prioritising the survival of her case over the fundamental duty to investigate potential wrongdoing, regardless of the perpetrator’s position.
Who holds the Attorney General accountable in such a situation?
Who ensures that she navigates this profound conflict with the objectivity and courage her office demands?
Ultimately, the onus falls heavily on the AG herself, under the intense glare of public scrutiny, and potentially, international observers concerned with the rule of law in Malta.
Her decision will not only determine the fate of Magistrate Vella but will also serve as a critical indicator of the Maltese justice system’s capacity to handle internal crises impartially.
