Jeremy Harbinson’s repeated refusal to testify in person for the Vitals Global Healthcare (VGH) inquiry strikes at the heart of transparency and fairness in Malta’s judicial process. His decision to rely on remote testimony, citing personal and family reasons, denies defendants the right to cross-examine a witness whose report is central to the case.
Jeremy Harbinson
Cross-examination is not a formality; it is a cornerstone of justice. It allows for rigorous scrutiny of evidence, ensuring that findings withstand challenges and inconsistencies are exposed. Without Harbinson’s physical presence, the defendants are left unable to probe critical aspects of his methodology and conclusions. How were the alleged financial irregularities identified? What assumptions underpin his claims of fraud? These are questions that can only be effectively addressed through direct, in-person questioning.
The refusal becomes even more troubling given the high stakes of the inquiry. The VGH case is not just another legal dispute; it represents a key test of Malta’s judicial establishment. Harbinson’s unwillingness to testify creates a perception of evasion and weakens the credibility of the findings he authored.
For an inquiry of this magnitude, the absence of such a crucial witness cannot be overlooked. The Maltese public deserves a process where accountability is not just promised but demonstrated. Harbinson’s refusal to testify in person raises serious concerns about the inquiry’s integrity, leaving many to question whether justice is being served—or sidelined.
