Seguna is facing charges of misappropriating around €500,000 from 150 parishioners. The case has piqued public interest given his position and claims that he allegedly spent €148,000 on pornographic websites amid the priest’s “sexual crisis”. 

What has raised eyebrows is Seguna holding 10 separate accounts at BOV, HSBC and APS. Meanwhile, one account, called ‘masses’, had seen around €107,000 withdrawn over six years, while having a balance of €80,000.

Seguna insisted that those were personal funds donated to him and has maintained that other cash and cheque donations went directly to the church’s maintenance, community work, and charity. 

Several testimonies heard in this morning’s sitting and the session after the afternoon break seemed to confirm some of these claims.

One fisherman, Michael Carabott, detailed how he gave cheques to Seguna “for his needs” whether that meant “for the parish, the community, or whatever he wanted to do with it”. 

“I don’t trust the Curia. I trust that man,” he said, referencing Seguna.

Cedric Baldacchino and Josianne Cascun, who donated €500 and €700 to Seguna via Revolut respectively, also said that the money was expressly meant for him.

“I donated to help, as support and encouragement for Fr Luke to keep up his work,”  Marlene Camilleri said.

Paulina Bugeja also revealed that a cheque of €1,435 issued to Seguna, was proceeds from a sale in which he provided several books. 

However, others did make it clear that their donations to Seguna should have been expressly used on parish work. 

Pensioner Francis Mifsud detailed how he had issued regular donations to the church and while he didn’t check to see how his donation was being used, he saw evidence of it in the maintenance and repairs done in the church.

That work ranged from air conditioning, window repairs, marble works and scaffolding. 

Antonia Caruana, who donated three €1,000 cheques, said it wasn’t in her interest to know how it was spent, and told the court that she had faith in Seguna to administer the funds correctly.

Meanwhile, Emanuel Farrugia, another fisherman, said that he donated a €1,000 cheque for “parish needs”.

There are still some donations that do raise eyebrows, like those given by Renata Pace, a pensioner from Birkirkara who donated specifically to a sanctuary and orphanage abroad. It remains to be seen whether the funds actually reached their desired location.

Earlier in the sitting, Michael Pace Ross, who leads the administration of the Archdiocese of Malta, revealed that donations given expressly to the parish priests or priests themselves can be kept by them.

However, he revealed that there were clear guidelines detailing how funds should be distributed to the church. A document detailing those guidelines was submitted to the court.

He also revealed that parish priests are technically allowed to deposit money meant for the Church in their accounts, but that must be transferred within a reasonable timeframe.

Money meant for statues or for repairs, church collections at mass, Easter blessings of homes, and so on, are donations for the Church. However, part of the money goes to a Curia fund to cover all remuneration of the clergy. 

It remains to be seen how the case will develop and how much of the €500,000 allegedly misappropriated went into Seguna’s pockets or whether it simply bypassed Curia’s procedure and reached its desired destination. 

If today’s sitting is anything to go by, it’s clear that those testifying remain firmly behind Seguna regardless of the charges, meaning that the police might have a mountain to climb to prove their case.

What do you think of the testimonies?