The first part of this series is here.
Dr Vincent Galea – Jigifieri din l-inkjesta allura jekk joghbok li waslet ghandek minghand Dr Pawlu Lia, qatt iddiskutejtha mal-Avukat Generali inti?
Dr Owen Bonnici – Le jien ma ddiskutejtx l-inkjesta mal-Avukat Generali. Li tkellimt mieghu dwar l-issue tal-pubblikazzjoni ghaliex l-Avukat Generali infurmani immedjatament li huwa kien kontra li din l-inkjesta tigi ppubblikata. Il-Prim Ministru kien diga qal kemm il-darba li kif tigi l-inkjesta, nikkoregi ruhi, kif tigi konkluza l-inkjesta jrid li tigi ppubblikata, naturalment skond il-ligi u l-Avukat Generali qalli car u tond li ma jaqbilx li tigi ppubblikata u tani r-ragunijiet li huma pubblici, jigifieri dawn ir-ragunijiet l-Avukat Generali ma qalhomx lili biss imma anke informal ill-pubbliku dwarhom meta imbaghad ippubblika l-konkluzzjonijiet tal-inkjesta ghax l-inkjesta ghandha parti fejn huma l-konkluzzjonijiet l-aktar importanti, l-Avukat Generali ppublikahhom minn jeddu dawk il-konklizzjonijiet u qal ukoll ghaliex ma jaqbilx li ma tigix ppubblikata kollha f’dak l-istqarrija. Dak li kien hemm fl-istqarrija lili kien qaluli qabel.
Dr Vincent Galea: Meta kienet allura l-ewwel okkazzjoni illi inti ghidt lill-Avukat Generali, isma jien qieghed ghax l-Avukat Generali uza l-kelma nassisti lill-Prim Ministru, jew kliem f’dak is-sens, meta kien l-ewwel darba li nfurmajtu lill-Avukat Generali?
Dr Owen Bonnici: Il-kliem li ghidt lill-Avukat Generali kien fis-sens li ghandna sitwazzjoni fejn l-Avukat Generali ghandu fehma u l-Prim Ministru ghandu fehma kontrarja u jiena ghidt lill-Avukat Generali li hemm din is-sitwazzjoni u li kont qed nassisti lill-Prim Ministru ghandux jaghmel kawzi civili per ezempju jew jekk il-Prim Ministru ghandux jaghmel proceduri personali kontra min ghamel din il-gidba fahxija fuqu u fuq familtu ghax ma ninsewx li qed nitkellmu fuq familja innocenti li xi had ivvinta dokumenti biex jaghmel frame up fuqha. Jien ma dhaltx, jiena kont qed nassisti lill-Prim Ministru jekk trid tuza dak il-verb fuq dan il-punt.
Dr Vincent Galea: Fuq dik biss, dak il-punt biss kont qieghed int?
Dr Owen Bonnici: Le jien kont involut ukoll fuq punt iehor. Il-Prim Ministru fil-mument li gie infurmat li l-inkjesta giet konkluza imbaghad eventwalment meta kellu access ghall-injesta shiha, naturalment qam il-bzonn li l-pubbliku jigi infurmat, kien diga informa l-pubbliku l-Avukat Generali imma mill-ewwel skatta mill-ewwel process bejn il-gurnalisti gustament, bdew isaqsu domandi lill-Prim Ministru, jitolbuh il-kummenti u dan kollu, allura mbaghad hemhekk assumejt, assistejt lill-Prim Ministru fuq haga ohra, r-redazzjoni, jigifieri l-kitba, d-drafting li l-Prim Ministru kien ser jaghti l-ghada filghodu f’konferenza stampa. Essenzjalment assistejna lill-Prim Ministru u Kurt Farrugia. Jien ma ridtx, jew cioe’ xogholi kelli responsabbiltia’ illi b’dakk kollu li jghid il-Prim Ministru ma tigix ostakolata kwalunkwe investigazzjoni li ikun hemm ghaddejja in vista ta’ dak li gie konkluz fl-inkjesta, cioe’ li kellna familja hawnhekk illi xi hadd qadt bilqeghda, ffalsifika dokument biex din il-familja jintefala htija ta’ xi haga li ma ghamlitx.
Dr Vincent Galea: Is-Sibt filghodu cempillek l-Avukat Generali, wara nofsinhar ghaddielek kopja fizika tal-inkjesta Dr Lia, kopja ohra tak l-Avukat Generali
Dr Owen Bonnici – You make reference to ‘l-konkluzzjonijiet l-aktar importanti’ and, in fact the pages published state clearly that these are ‘konkluzzjonijet principali’, principal conclusions. Am I to understand that there are secondary conclusions in the report, and if so, why were these not published? Should the general public not be aware as to what the secondary conclusions were? In my opinion, what may be ‘principal’ to one, may not be ‘principal’ to others.
Dr Owen Bonnici – When you emphasised to the Court, that you were assisting the Prime Minister as a personal lawyer, you were doing so only to advise him as to whether he should start personal proceedings against whoever made this terrible lie against the Prime Minister and his family, and that one should not forget that we are here talking about an innocent family against whom someone faked documents to make a frame-up against her (Michelle Muscat).
I must state without regret, however, that you are an absolute scumbag, when you cry pity on this poor ‘innocent’ family, when at the same time, you show no genuine regrets, pity and political guilt on the heinous assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia and her entire orphaned family and, not only, you also author and order the removal of candles, flowers and messages of solidarity left at the memorial site in Valletta, which you have now done for over 400 times, more than any extreme dictator ever did.
You also allowed, without condemning, the ‘arrest’ of who you call a Daphne Caruana Galizia activist, on being manhandled by one of your commissioned anti-Daphne Caruana Galizia thugs, and neither the police took action against your MP colleague, who lied to the Police when he told them that he was witness to this ‘frame-up’ incident. This made up incident/frame-up, which was blared out by your filthy hate news portals to incite Labourites against the activist, was eventually condemned by the Court.
Dr Owen Bonnici – You then remember that there was another issue on which you were assisting as a personal lawyer. This was about the redaction for the drafting of what the Prime Minister intended to include in his Press Conference. You state that your responsibility was that of ensuring that what the Prime Minister said, did not in any way disturb any ongoing investigation in the light of the conclusions of the inquiry, that is, that we had a family about whom someone sat down, forged a document so that this family will be found guilty of something it did not do.
Please note that you mentioned ongoing investigations six months after the publication of the inquiry, and eight months since you testified in Court. Yet, to date, no one has been apprehended for this forgery and neither has any mention been made of a suspect/s. This leads one to suspect that this is a planned cover-up, if not also a potential frame-up and that the person forging the document maybe someone who operates within the circle of Karl Cini and Mossack Fonseca, possibly Jacqueline Alexander herself, who said that it was her signature that was forged. I also wonder why a copy of the forged document was not published.
Please also note that a forged signature was mentioned after the failure by Karl Cini to obtain a signed declaration requested of Jacqueline Alexander, stating that no declaration of trust was ever issued in the name of Michelle Muscat. The issue of this declaration was denied by Mossack Fonseca, who obviously tightened their risk management after the publication of the Panama Papers, and their exposed involvement and court actions for aiding and abetting money laundering of earnings from corruptive practices and illicit activities, as well as the rampant forgery of documents, including Jacqueline Alexander herself, relating to their thousands of clients.