Justice Minister Jonathan Attard confirmed in parliament that his ministry carries out the necessary due diligence on court experts selected by members of the judiciary, but admitted that this was only done for some of the court experts.
The Labour government has never reformed how court experts are nominated and remunerated despite its many promises.
In a rare parliamentary question, Labour backbencher and former minister Carmelo Abela tasked Minister Attard to state whether the government was carrying out any due diligence to ensure that those acting as court experts had the necessary qualifications.
Abela is considered a member of Labour’s Joseph Muscat faction, so much so that he was one of those attending the disgraced former prime minister’s wedding anniversary bash in Barbados in the summer.
Carmelo Abela has landed another government job after being sacked by Prime Minister Robert Abela.
In his reply, the Justice Minister told Abela that the Department of Justice carries out the necessary due diligence on experts and presents an updated list of those to be nominated by members of the judiciary, including during magisterial inquiries.
Yet Minister Attard admitted one major flaw. The government’s list of experts was not mandatory, and magistrates could choose whoever they wanted. Meanwhile, the government foots the bills with no questions asked.
Labour has been procrastinating on a necessary reform in the appointment of court experts since it was elected in 2013.
Despite court operatives and even the Chamber of Advocates repeatedly calling for reform, even describing the current system as ‘a racket’, one justice minister after another has failed to implement recommendations made by a Justice Reform Commission in 2013.
Just a few months ago, Minister Attard complained that court experts were costing the government millions a year and admitted that there were few checks and balances.
The costs of the system have grown from €2 million in 2017 to almost €10 million in 2020, and the details remain scarce.
Carmelo Abela’s question in parliament happened to coincide with the issue raised by Joseph Muscat in the case he is facing for corruption, money laundering and fraud, among other crimes.
Muscat’s lawyers have complained that one of the court experts in the damning Vitals inquiry, Miroslava Milenovic, carried out work without having an accountant’s warrant.
Muscat now wants the expert – a prosecution witness – to be investigated by the police, who are also part of the prosecution, for perjury.
Milenovic’s record shows she is a certified fraud examiner who has worked on a number of international cases.
She was also the expert in another inquiry on Joseph Muscat and his wife Michelle on the Panama company Egrant.
That inquiry failed to make a connection between the company and the Muscats, but the couple had no problem with that outcome and did not challenge Milenovic’s expertise.
“he was one of those attending the disgraced former prime minister’s wedding anniversary bash in Barbados…happened to coincide with the issue raised by Joseph Muscat in the case he is facing for corruption”: says all about Abela.
Classic example of how the Government chooses which version of the rules best suits their needs to avoid having to admit misfeasance whilst in office.
An administration of lazy, self-serving morons, voted in by gullible short-sighted morons. Even though far from perfect, the lesser evil should be glaringly obvious by now.
The discussion of who can call himself an accountant has long been an issue in the Maltese accountancy profession. The legal framework for what a CPA can and cannot do and who can call himself an accountant has always been loose. Glorified bookkeepers pass themselves as accountants when the term should be restricted solely to those in possession of a Maltese or equivalent European warrant that has been approved. At least the regulations concerning practicing auditors is a bit more restrictive, but that is beyond the point. The CFE qualification is no substitute for a warrant and although a valid post graduate specialization, it does not replace the warrant or entitle the holder to call himself or herself a forensic accountant. The title chartered accountant (ACCA) is also not a replacement for a warrant. Any accounting professional who does not yet hold a warrant should not be allowed to use the title accountant in any form or manner, not even as a job description. Unfortunately, this has never been addressed as it should have and now, the chickens are coming home to roost for the accountancy profession.
All this is said without detracting from the experience that any forensic expert may or may not have. These are however legal definitions that remain unaddressed and which may now lead to issues that could have been pre-empted years back when the issue was first raised.