Lawyers representing a number of people accused of fraudulently receiving social benefits have told a court today that their clients had not yet received any confirmation of the Presidential Pardon announced by the Prime Minister last week.
In a verbal note dictated before the start of eight of the cases of alleged social benefits fraud, lawyer Jason Azzopardi asked the court to immediately issue a summons to the Prime Minister in order that he testify about the pardon, which they had not received a copy of.
Azzopardi told the court that the Head of State had signed a pardon “which exonerates those who, like the defendants in today’s cases, who had already started to repay the social benefits they had received unduly,” at the request of the Prime Minister, but that all he had to go on was a Government press release.
Other defendants echo adjournment request
In another benefits fraud case, defence lawyer Jose Herrera also noted that the Prime Minister had issued a statement that the President had been advised to use her prerogative to issue a general pardon to people accused of social benefits fraud.
“The issue is that the defence understands that this pardon is an option to those defendants or persons under investigation who wish to use it. So the pardon does not apply to whoever does not file a petition in his own name. The main condition for the pardon seems to be the repayment of the money received from the department.
In this case, the defendant has already used his right to petition the President and had done so last week. He had also repaid the benefits he had received, said the lawyer, something also confirmed by the Social Security department representative in court.
It would mean that these proceedings become extinct, said the lawyer, asking that the case against his client also be adjourned.
Lawyers Lennox Vella and Noel Bianco also made similar requests when it was their clients’ turn to appear. The court also moved to adjourn those proceedings to a later date.
“Eight days on, Dr. Azzopardi cannot instruct his clients, because to date this pardon has not yet been published, and so the defendants are not aware of its contents, bar that which emerged in a news article and was confirmed by the Government.”
The lawyer emphasised that the prosecuting officials were also in the dark about this, not having been informed of the details of this pardon, which is affecting hundreds of cases. “In the light of this, Dr. Azzopardi asks, even out of a sense of loyalty to the court itself, this case does not begin, that the Prime Minister be summoned immediately, so that he can explain to the court exactly what this pardon says and what it doesn’t.”
Lawyer Anita Giordmaina, representing the Social Security department, did not object to the request.
The court said that it did not see any difficulty at this stage, to concede an adjournment in order for the defendant’s position to be clarified. This was because it is not the first time that adjournments are given for this reason.
The Magistrate, however, added that she would not be summonsing the Prime Minister to testify as requested, expressing her hope by the next sitting “what is meant to happen in these cases will become clearer.”
