Steward President refused to give evidence at ICC after getting government consultancy

A close examination of the evidence cited by the tribunal in the lead-up to its final ruling reveals why the government was so determined to keep the proceedings shielded from public view for as long as possible.

Over the course of two and a half years, both Steward and the government submitted extensive documentation to support their competing claims for compensation. 

Although this material was never made public, the judgment itself quotes substantial excerpts, offering rare insight into internal correspondence, disputed witness statements, and other documents that together add depth and context to the story behind this protracted arbitration.

Below are a few highlights from these secretive proceedings.

Nadine Delicata’s volte-face

The former president of Steward Healthcare Malta, Nadine Delicata, was one of the concessionaire’s key Maltese operatives. The current health minister, Jo Etienne Abela, recently brought Delicata back into the fold by awarding her a consultancy position.

In February 2024, Steward submitted Delicata’s witness statement as part of their initial “Statement of Claim,” which is essentially the opening stage of the ICC’s tribunal’s submissions process. Besides filing documents, parties are also entitled to request documents from the other party.

Throughout this process, the tribunal then sifts through those submissions and requests, issuing “procedural orders” that determine what happens with both.

One such procedural order notes that the tribunal was “not satisfied” with Steward’s claims that it had provided all the documents it could. One of those documents was Delicata’s employment contract, which the government had explicitly requested.

“Regarding the request and the redactions made to Dr Delicata’s employment contract, without taking a view with respect to the GDPR, but given the sensitivity of compensation, the Arbitral Tribunal hereby orders Claimants (Steward) to produce an unredacted version of Dr Delicata’s employment contract solely to those members of Respondent’s (the government) outside legal team on record,” the tribunal decided.

While it remains unclear why Steward seemed reluctant to divulge Delicata’s contract to the government due to a lack of direct access to the evidence of the case, her name crops up again at a later stage of the proceedings.

Last February, Steward informed the tribunal and the government that Delicata would not be testifying during a later stage known as the evidentiary hearing, with the government requesting that her original witness statement be removed from the record.

A few weeks later, Steward attempted to have its cake and eat it too, submitting new “factual exhibits” to support its request to keep Delicata’s original witness statement on the record without requiring her to testify during the evidentiary hearing.

By April, the tribunal was forced to intervene, pointedly asking both parties to “address” its queries about Delicata’s reentry into government employment via her health ministry consultancy, whether Delicata had expressly stated that she did not wish to testify, and whether she had informed the government of her reluctance to testify.

The tribunal eventually rejected the government’s request to have Delicata’s witness statement struck off the record, adding that it had “given the claimants the benefit of the doubt, not the least because under the circumstances, Dr Delicata’s witness statement will in any event not bear the same weight as the statement of a witness who has been subjected to cross-examination.”

‘The mastermind’ and his ‘candid’ emails

In its preliminary remarks about the relevant facts of the case, the tribunal noted that Steward Healthcare Malta’s former CEO, Armin Ernst, was, according to the government’s own submissions, “the mastermind behind Steward’s involvement” in the concession.

In a separate segment analysing the concession’s performance, the tribunal made additional remarks about Ernst’s “candid” emails to the original operators who were supposed to handle the concession in the first place – Vitals Global Healthcare (VGH). Prior to becoming Steward Malta’s CEO, Ernst also served as VGH’s CEO.

In one such 2016 email to VGH’s shadow investor, Shaukat Ali – who now stands among Muscat and his associates in the ongoing criminal case against a score of individuals linked with the concession – Ernst’s assessment was so “candid” that the tribunal thought it was appropriate to quote it.

In a bullet point list outlining the “risks” faced by VGH, Ernst explicitly referred to his own employer as “an underfunded enterprise with repeated cash flow problems” and raised concerns about a lead director (Ram Tumuluri) with a “lack of operational and healthcare experience.”

Ernst also referred to “a lack of transparency of current contracts and obligations” incurred by the company, “suspicions of misrepresentation” of Tumuluri’s prior experience, and “the erosion of trust between the major shareholder” and himself due to the issues outlined above.

“This does not just represent a wasted opportunity to be perceived as a well-funded enterprise that knows what it is doing, it also opened the door to public suspicion that we are not properly equipped to do the job and that the health system may be in jeopardy,” Ernst’s email continues.

“I realise that we state that over €20 million has been spent, but this has not been done in a way that is visible to the public, nor has it been done in a way to improve conditions for staff and facilities in a perceptible way. This issue remains unresolved,” he added.

In a separate 2017 email to Steward’s global CEO, Ralph De La Torre, Ernst was even more blunt in his assessment.

“Claim is that €25 million has been invested to date, but that has mainly been into nice digs and cars, lawyers and entertainment to build the necessary facade,” Ernst warned, adding that a lack of investment in immediate infrastructural upgrades was “starting to make it clear to the outside world that there are insufficient investment funds available.”

Ronald Mizzi’s secret NDA

Ronald Mizzi, a permanent secretary who was forced to resign and later reappointed to the prime minister’s office while facing criminal charges, signed a secret Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with Steward Healthcare in November 2017.

On behalf of his former disgraced boss, Konrad Mizzi, Ronald Mizzi and Ernst signed the NDA, which served to note Steward’s interest in acquiring VGH.

According to the tribunal’s notes, Steward claimed to have sought the NDA to obtain confidential information prior to its acquisition for the purposes of due diligence – even though Ernst was evidently aware of VGH’s liquidity problems.

Just three days later, Ronald Mizzi flew to a secret meeting held in the London office of Steward’s lawyers at the time, McDermott Will & Emery, for what was named “Project Haven”. There was no further detail provided about the objectives of this project, except for a reference to an internal email that was not disclosed.

The meeting was also attended by lawyer Aron Mifsud Bonnici, another one of Konrad Mizzi’s faithful enablers who faces several ongoing criminal charges. During that meeting, Mifsud Bonnici was serving as the government’s legal representative.

A month after the NDA was signed, Steward signed the share purchase agreement that cemented their formal takeover of VGH’s holding companies.