Maltese legal history is peppered with examples of court-cases which drag on for years without ever reaching a conclusion. Raphael Vassallo talks to PETER CASSAR TORREGGIANI, who originally filed the case against government on behalf of the 400-odd shareholders of the National Bank of Malta
Labour leader Joseph Muscat often talks in cataclysmic terms such as ‘earthquake of change’. It is debatable, however, whether he is aware of the connotations these words may have, especially for people old enough to remember the first few years of another progressive Labour leader, back in distant 1971.
The first five years of Dom Mintoff’s stint as Prime Minister of Malta, between 1971 and 1984 (when he made way for Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici), were characterised by a series of ‘earthquake’ reforms – the scale, scope and energy of which often left entire segments of society gasping for breath.
Among the many industries immediately targeted by the incoming Socialist Prime Minister was the country’s independent financial sector – and by 1974, after just three years of a Labour government, this had ceased to resemble the previous network of largely privately-owned family banks. One group in particular – the National Bank of Malta, born in 1946 out of a merger between the Anglo-Maltese Bank, the Banco di Malta, B. Tagliaferri et Fils, and the Scicula Bank – had passed on to the State to become the Bank of Valletta, under circumstances which still elicit strong emotions to this day, more than 30 years later.
The full story is too complex and fraught with controversy to be examined in this humble article. Suffice it to say that that a corporate history of BOV, commissioned by the bank itself earlier this year, has yet to published on account of conflicting interpretations of the 1970s takeover.
Without entering the merits of the takeover itself – ‘merits’ here used in the broadest sense of the word – the subsequent court-case has gone down as arguably the longest-drawn out legal affair in Maltese history. Originally filed in 1974, it has yet to reach even a first verdict... after which (provided a verdict is ever reached) there is always the possibility of appeal.
Peter Cassar Toreggiani was chairman of the shareholders’ association at the time of the bank’s annexation, and also the man who originally filed the case against the government of Malta on behalf of the association’s approximately 400 members.
Over 30 years have since passed, and the resulting court case has been deferred on countless occasions... often without any reason or explanation. Cassar Torregiani himself recalls no official justifucation ever forthcoming for deferrals which have dragged the case out more than three decades.
“No official justification (for the deferrals) has been issued, as far as I know. However, under the socialist governments of Mr Dom Mintoff and Dr Karmenu Mifsud Bonnici there was a sense amongst our successive lawyers that the court would never find for the shareholders, since it would be un-enforceable. So maybe both the judges and the lawyers thought it better to leave things on the slow burner, so to speak.”
The situation must also be viewed in the context of Malta’s recent – and to a large extent unwritten – political history. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was widely felt that any case brought against government, especially one involving such large sums of money, simply could not be won, against a regime which had a history of bending laws to its own advantage.
“I never accepted this sentiment and always tried to see that the court case took its regular course,” Cassar Torregiani recalls. “I would sit in court all morning and was once told by the judge in open court that evidently I wasn’t in agreement with the lawyer Ricardo Farrugia and if I thought it was in the interest of shareholders for the case to proceed rapidly, I should be at Mount Carmel (Psychiatric) Hospital.”
But there was another side to the defence lawyers’ rationale. Back then, ‘playing for time’ appeared to be a sensible option, in an environment where the Opposition constantly claimed that “righteousness will definitely prevail”, and that all wrongs would be righted under the PN. And while the shareholders may not have been entirely united on this viewpoint, there were many among them who argued that their fortunes would be different under a Nationalist administration.
And yet, 22 years have elapsed since the long-awaited change of government in May 1987, without ushering in any significant change to the landscape. The NBM shareholders are still in court awaiting the first ruling in a case that is now almost exactly as old as the current Opposition leader, Joseph Muscat. The only difference is that the government to constantly procrastinate is led by the PN.
And yet, Cassar Torregiani remembers the vague promise of a settlement at roughly this time. “When there was a change of government to Dr Fenech Adami, on the occasion of the party opening of the Trade Fair, a judge had said it was now time to settle out of court, if I remember correctly taking me aside with somebody in the government.”
But no immediate settlement would be agreed upon. The closest the shareholders came was in 2005, when the vast majority refused a compensation offer of between €7 ansd €9 million – which offer was made at a time when a foreign bank had expressed an interest in buying BOV.
Despite the fact that the majority turned the offer down, Cassar Torreggiani is hopeful that a settlement may one day be reached.
“Once the government offered to settle out of court and actually stated a sum, then I think there is a very good chance of light coming out of the whole experience for the whole island now that financial services seem set to grow exponentially.”
As the person who originally filed the case on behalf of the National Bank of Malta shareholders, does he feel that ‘justice delayed is justice denied’?
“Yes I do, but as a member of the Neo-Katecumenate I am no longer interested in pressing for court solutions, and prefer to work for the out of court solution. I am sure that in this case the path to widespread structural improvement to socio-economic justice will result for deep benefit in Malta and beyond.”
Nonetheless, Cassar Torreggiani remains convinced that the 30-year quest for justice has violated his and his fellow shareholders’ human rights.
“I have always insisted that the delay justifies appealing to the Council of Europe Commission on human rights, since case law there has long established that more than seven years was legally too long.”
Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below. Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.
Download front page in pdf file format
All the interviews from Reporter on MaltaToday's YouTube channel.
