Court of appeal confirms State Advocate’s power to act in fraudulent hospitals deal

A Court of Appeal has ruled that the State Advocate possesses the power to independently take legal action to recover public funds tied to the controversial hospitals concession, marking a significant development in the ongoing case. The decision, as reported by several local news outlets, was in response to an appeal by the Nationalist Party (PN) seeking accountability and restitution of €400 million paid in a deal previously declared fraudulent by the courts.

The ruling partly overturns a previous decision by the First Hall, Civil Court, which had denied the State Advocate’s power or obligation to pursue legal action in the case. Chief Justice Mark Chetcuti, along with Justices Giannino Caruana Demajo and Anthony Ellul, clarified that the State Advocate’s authority is established under article 33 of the Government Lands Act, enabling action against those responsible for returning the defrauded funds.

The Nationalist Party’s appeal argued that the State Advocate, as the “guardian of the state,” has a duty to act in the public interest to recover the funds misappropriated through the hospitals deal. The concession, awarded initially to Vitals Global Healthcare and later transferred to Steward Healthcare, has been widely criticised as a misuse of public resources.

In its earlier ruling, the First Hall had concluded that while the State Advocate is independent and autonomous, no explicit legal obligation compelled action in this case. It also warned that unilateral action by the State Advocate could undermine democratic processes. However, the Court of Appeal dismissed these concerns, affirming that the State Advocate has the authority to act within the framework of the law without requiring external authorisation.

While the judgment affirms the State Advocate’s ability to act, it stops short of imposing a direct obligation to pursue legal proceedings. Instead, the decision underscores the balance of autonomy and responsibility within the role, setting a precedent for future cases involving public interest.

State Advocate Chris Soler had previously defended his stance, arguing that acting without clear legal authority could risk overstepping the role’s remit. Following the appeal decision, the court emphasised that while the State Advocate must remain free from external direction, they are empowered to seek restitution in cases where funds have been misused.

The ruling was met with approval from the Nationalist Party, whose leader Bernard Grech hailed it as a victory for public accountability. Speaking outside the court, Dr Grech reiterated the importance of recovering funds lost to corruption, stating, “Today’s judgment is a step forward in ensuring justice for the Maltese people.”

The decision also attracted notable political attendance, with Prime Minister Robert Abela, Justice Minister Jonathan Attard, and other key figures reportedly present at the court session.

The landmark decision now places the ball in the State Advocate’s court, providing the legal basis to initiate proceedings against parties involved in the fraudulent deal. Whether the State Advocate will act on this authority remains to be seen.

As the saga continues, the focus will now shift to whether this legal avenue is pursued and how it impacts Malta’s broader efforts to combat corruption and restore public trust in state institutions.