Court dismisses Schembri’s challenge over PAC testimony
The Constitutional Court has ruled that former chief of staff Keith Schembri’s rights were not violated during his 2023 questioning by the Public Accounts Committee (PAC). The judgment, issued on 30 September 2026, ends his constitutional challenge over how he was treated while testifying under oath about Enemalta’s contracts with Electrogas Malta.
No coercion found: The court found no evidence Schembri was forced to answer questions that could incriminate him, nor was he penalised for remaining silent. The judges noted that after he refused further answers, the PAC suspended his testimony on the Speaker’s instruction — meaning he was never compelled to continue.
Right to silence is targeted, not total: Witnesses before parliamentary committees can refuse to answer specific questions if they genuinely risk self-incrimination. But this right does not give a witness blanket permission to stay silent throughout. The court confirmed that Schembri could have invoked this protection for individual questions — and was not required to seek the Speaker’s permission to do so.
MPs’ police report didn’t make him a suspect: Three Opposition MPs — Darren Carabott, David Agius, and Graham Bencini — filed a police report after Schembri’s hearing, citing contradictions between his statements and those of two other witnesses. The court made clear that this report merely flagged issues for police investigation; it did not designate Schembri as a suspect or defendant, nor did it alter his legal status.
Standing Order 62 upheld: Schembri argued that non-MP witnesses like himself should have the right to directly request a ruling from the Speaker during proceedings — a privilege reserved only for Members of Parliament under Standing Order 62. The court acknowledged the rule but ruled that its existence did not remove his core legal protections, including the right against self-incrimination.
The PAC’s mandate is to scrutinise financial reports from the Auditor General and ensure accountability in public spending. Its power to summon witnesses — and hold them accountable under oath — is well established in Maltese law. The Constitutional Court reaffirmed that while the PAC is not a court, its processes must still respect fundamental rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly regarding fair treatment during questioning.
No automatic halt to testimony: Schembri had called for his testimony to be paused pending the police investigation. The court found that this pause, which did occur, was lawful and actually protected his position — not undermined it. The judgment leaves open the possibility that he may be summoned again to continue answering questions.
The Nationalist Party welcomed the ruling, saying it validated the PAC’s role in holding officials to account. PN leaders renewed their call for the Commissioner of Police to disclose whether the 2023 report on conflicting statements has led to any formal action — now more than three years after it was filed.
The Labour Party has not publicly responded to the judgment. Civil society groups and legal experts continue to monitor how this precedent shapes future interactions between parliament and witnesses, especially when criminal allegations are mentioned during committee hearings.
What this means for public officials: Any Maltese citizen summoned to the PAC must testify under oath. But they can refuse specific answers if they believe those answers could expose them to criminal liability — without fear of being held in contempt for doing so. However, refusing to answer all questions without justification remains a risk, and the courts side with parliamentary committees when their scrutiny is conducted without coercion.
