Jill Kennedy’s appointment as an expert in the Hospitals Inquiry has raised more questions than answers. Describing herself as an “analyst and management consultant,” Kennedy has certainly had a colourful career. But behind the professional facade lies a much murkier story.
Kennedy’s company, Athena Insights Limited, was barely holding on. In fact, it was on the brink of bankruptcy. Opening the company in January 2016, Kennedy quickly found herself facing a serious financial crisis. The business spent more than it earned, and soon it was technically insolvent. With no assets to pay its creditors, her financial woes were undeniable.
But then came her fateful meeting with Jeremy Harbinson—another disgraced court expert—and everything changed.
Enter Harbinson, a man whose involvement in multiple scandals (including his refusal to testify in Malta) hardly inspires confidence. This connection, which helped pull Kennedy from the jaws of financial ruin, raises troubling questions about the ethics of her later appointment as an expert. Was Kennedy really the best choice, or was she merely a pawn in Harbinson’s network of court experts?
Jill Kennedy
Kennedy’s appointment on September 2, 2020, turned out to be a financial lifeline for Athena Insights Limited. Over the next few years, the company’s fortunes improved. But let’s be honest: this financial recovery didn’t come from magical business acumen. It came from the flow of payments from the Maltese Court Inquiries and the Maltese taxpayer, conveniently timed to keep her business afloat. The moment those payments stopped? Her company’s finances once again started to tank. Coincidence? You decide.
Court experts are supposed to be impartial, free from any financial pressures or personal relationships that could compromise their judgment. Yet Kennedy, in the middle of a financial crisis, was appointed based on a recommendation from Harbinson, who had his own questionable history with the courts. The optics alone are damning, casting a cloud over this whole mess.
The real question is, how did this appointment happen? Why were individuals with questionable financial records and ties to controversial figures chosen to advise the court?
The actions taken in the Hospitals Inquiry and also the Electrogas Inquiry —like so many others—can’t just be brushed aside.
