Court Dismisses Keith Schembri's Constitutional Challenge to Parliamentary Grilling
In brief
- The court has rejected a constitutional lawsuit filed by former government chief of staff Keith Schembri.
- Schembri had challenged the conduct and interrogation methods used by parliament's Public Accounts Committee.
- The decision upholds the parliamentary committee's proceedings and dismisses claims of fundamental rights breaches.
A constitutional court has dismissed a lawsuit filed by Keith Schembri, which challenged the conduct and line of questioning adopted by parliament's Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
Schembri, who served as chief of staff in the Office of the Prime Minister under Joseph Muscat, had filed constitutional proceedings arguing that his fundamental human rights were infringed during his appearances before the parliamentary committee.
The parliamentary committee has spent extensive sessions examining controversial major state contracts and scrutinising public expenditure, calling Schembri and other former senior officials to provide testimony.
Throughout the parliamentary hearings, Schembri was subjected to prolonged and rigorous questioning by members of parliament, prompting his legal counsel to lodge a formal legal challenge against the manner in which the inquiry was conducted.
The court turned down Schembri's constitutional grievances in their entirety, finding no valid legal basis to intervene in the parliamentary committee's questioning.
The ruling affirms the legal standing of the parliamentary committee's investigative remit, confirming that the proceedings did not violate the former official's constitutional rights.
The Spin Room
Low media divide. Both outlets reported the court's dismissal of Keith Schembri's constitutional challenge consistently and without significant divergence.