Attorney General appeals ruling on recusal of judge from Panama Papers case
Attorney General Peter Grech has appealed the constitutional ruling for the recusal of Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi from the appeal case involving the Panama Papers inquiry.
On 12 July, a constitutional court upheld a request by former Opposition leader Simon Busuttil for Mizzi to recuse himself from the inquiry due to a possible conflict of interest given that his wife is Labour MEP Marlene Mizzi, who has expressed her views on the Panama Papers scandal.
In a post on social media, Busuttil said that the attorney general’s appeal meant that “together with the prime minister and others, the attorney general wants the husband of a Labour MP to decide on whether an investigation should begin. It is incredible but true.”
“This also means that they are going to continue doing all that they can for justice not to take place. The obstacles they are trying to create are not only blatant, but also dangerous.”
“I called this inquiry so that Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi could be investigated after having been found with secret companies in Panama. I made this request because no one had done anything over the years. I had no choice but to request it or leave justice to be buried.”
Mizzi had been due to hear appeals filed by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, his chief of staff Keith Schembri and Tourism Minister Konrad Mizzi, together with Brian Tonna, Karl Cini, Malcolm Scerri and Adrian Hillman against a magistrate’s decision to green light an inquiry in their regard. After the judge refused to step aside, Busuttil filed a separate constitutional case claiming a violation of his right to a fair hearing and requesting that the case be assigned to a different member of the judiciary.
After hearing both parties, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit Mackeon ruled that “it is a matter most crystal clear that Mr Justice Mizzi should be moved aside, even if only in the best interest of the administration of justice and all semblance of doubt about every decision and provision he would make.”
The First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction upheld Busuttil’s requests and ordered that the case be assigned to another judge.