Brian Tonna has informed the Public Accounts Committee that he will not be answering any of their questions in order to ensure that he does not incriminate himself in potential crimes he might be charged with in connection with the Electrogas deal. 

Tonna is a former partner of Nexia BT, was called upon to testify before the committee over his role in the Electrogas deal, in which he was a member of the board that selected the winning bidder.

Tonna is a former partner of the audit firm Nexia BT. The firm has been at the centre of a number of high-profile corruption cases and was the firm that set up companies in Panama for government officials, including former OPM chief of staff Keith Schembri.

He was recently charged with money laundering and corruption charges following the conclusions of two magisterial inquiries requested by former Opposition leader Simon Busuttil back in 2017.

At the start of the sitting, Tonna’s lawyer Stephen Tonna Lowell said he had advised his client not to answer any questions and to exercise his right not to incriminate himself. 

Today’s committee meeting was intended to focus on a report by the Auditor General of an investigation into the Electrgas contract.

The NAO was highly critical of the project, including its evaluation, due diligence, as well as the “risky” and “unprecedented” State guarantee of €360 million given to Electrogas.

A freedom of information request by the Times of Malta revealed that Tonna sat on the Enemalta selection committee, along with three other staff members from the same financial services firm.

Committee chairman Beppe Fenech Adami said he expected that Tonna would take that position and pointed to a judgment handed down by the Constitutional courts in which a clear distinction was made between different types of witnesses. He said he was not aware of any pending proceedings against Tonna in relation to the Electrogas deal. 

Tonna Lowell insisted however that there was no distinction between a person who is accused and one who is suspected. He said that case law showed that there was no distinction between the two. 

He added that Tonna had testified in a criminal inquiry regarding another matter and was asked questions regarding Electrogas. He said that while he had no reason to believe that he was a suspect, it appeared that “based on the questions he was asked” he could exclude that this could happen at some stage.  

Nationalist MP Karol Aquilina said that given the circumstance, the board should proceed and ask its questions, and Tonna could choose not to answer if the answer to question could result in him incriminating himself. This could then be evaluated according to the standing orders of the House of Representatives. 

It was at this point that Glenn Bedingfield said that he did not see any point to the committee asking Tonna questions if he had no intention of answering. 

“Given the option, most people called before the committee wouldn’t answer,” Fenech Adami replied. 

He insisted that though Tonna had a right not to answer questions he believed could incriminate him, this could not be in the form of a blanket refusal and that the questions needed to be put to him. He could then choose whether or not to answer each one. 

The board proceeded to ask a series of questions to Tonna, including about the Electrogas project, Egrant and any links he might have to the Chinese government. 

At the end of a litany of unanswered questions, Fenech Adami said that given that Tonna was not answering any questions, irrespective of their nature, he would be forwarding a request to the Speaker of the House for a ruling on the matter. 

Government MPs on the committee said they would ask their questions following the Speaker’s ruling.

What do you make of Tonna’s decision?