The Vitals Global Healthcare (VGH) Inquiry, which concluded in April 2024, has led to prosecutions against several former politicians and public officials, following recommendations by the inquiring magistrate, Dr. Gabriella Vella. As prosecution hearings resume today and in the coming weeks, attention is increasingly focused on the expert witnesses whose input significantly shaped the inquiry’s outcomes. Concerns have already been raised by Corbin’s Voice about the conflict of interest of one of the key experts, Miroslava Milenovic. However, particular scrutiny surrounds Dr. Samuel Sittlington, whose competence and appropriateness for such a complex investigation are expected to be called into question.
Expert Witnesses in the VGH Inquiry
The VGH Inquiry, which investigated the controversial hospital concession deal, saw testimony from a variety of high-ranking officials, including a former minister and key government officers. Observers were surprised to learn that the proces-verbal—the official conclusion of the inquiry—was written solely by the experts, without any input from the inquiring magistrate. None of the nominated experts have a background in Maltese law. Given this, it is no surprise that the spotlight has shifted to these experts, raising concerns about their qualifications and suitability for such a crucial role.
Among these experts was Dr. Samuel Sittlington, a financial investigator with a public profile that includes more than just forensic analysis. Sittlington’s background, including an online profile on Casting Now, a website for actors, public speakers, and media personalities, has raised significant concerns. His profile highlights his interpersonal and public speaking skills, but critics argue that these attributes fall short of the expertise required in a case involving high-level corruption and complex financial dealings.
Inquiries such as the VGH investigation require rigorous analysis of public contracts, international financial transactions, and corporate governance. The revelation that Sittlington seeks work through platforms like Casting Now, which caters to actors and public figures, has led many to question whether his professional focus aligns with the technical demands of such a significant inquiry. His Casting Now profile describes him as an extrovert who can “hold a conversation with anyone at any level” and “use humour and good dialogue to get my message across.” While these qualities may be admirable in certain settings, they may not sufficiently qualify him to tackle the intricate legal and financial aspects of the VGH case.
One therefore questions: Was Sittlington merely a “hired gun,” an actor brought in to follow a predetermined script, or did he perform a thorough and critical evaluation of the actual evidence before him?
A Question of Competence
The VGH Inquiry dealt with allegations of corruption, financial misconduct, and the mismanagement of multi-million-euro public-private partnerships. Such an inquiry requires not only forensic financial expertise but also a deep understanding of public procurement, international business law, and complex contractual arrangements. Sittlington’s background, which includes teaching in multiple countries and broad life experiences, as emphasised on Casting Now, may not necessarily translate into the detailed financial scrutiny required in a case of this complexity.
The role of an expert witness in such an inquiry is critical; their opinions shaped the course of the investigation and influenced the prosecution recommendations made by the magistrate. For some, Sittlington’s varied professional history raises concerns that his qualifications may not have been thoroughly scrutinised prior to his appointment. His experience in “holding audiences’ attention” and engaging in public speaking is not the specialised forensic expertise expected of a central figure in one of Malta’s most significant corruption investigations.
Language Concerns: A Broader Issue of Fairness?
Another area of concern is the use of language during the inquiry. One striking example, noted by Corbin’s Voice, is the testimony of Carmen Ciantar (given at her own request in August 2023). Her testimony was delivered in English to accommodate the expert witnesses, including Sittlington and Milenovic, who do not speak Maltese. This decision, while pragmatic, is likely to fuel debate. In Maltese courts, where Maltese is the official language, it is unusual for Maltese-speaking witnesses to deliver critical testimony in English, and this raises questions about whether all witnesses were given the same opportunity to speak in their preferred language.
An experienced trial lawyer has suggested that some witnesses may not be as comfortable speaking in English as they would be in Maltese. This raises the concern that key nuances or important points may have been lost or misunderstood during the inquiry. While English was used for the convenience of the expert witnesses, it is unclear whether testimonies given in Maltese were translated into English for the experts’ benefit, or whether the full meaning of some testimonies was adequately conveyed to them. If not, this could have compromised the quality and fairness of the inquiry—particularly in a case as consequential as the VGH one.
The Role of the Experts and Their Influence on Prosecutions
Since the inquiry concluded, prosecutions have been launched against several former politicians and public officials. The recommendations made by Magistrate Vella were entirely based on the reports and opinions provided by the expert witnesses.
Sittlington’s involvement is particularly concerning to those who question whether his qualifications match the complexity of the case. Given the stakes—potentially involving high-level corruption and significant mismanagement of public funds—some have argued that the inquiry would have benefitted from experts with more specialised financial and legal expertise. Critics are also questioning why Magistrate Vella chose to nominate an expert whose credibility has been questioned, creating vulnerabilities in the inquiry’s conclusions.
Sittlington’s unconventional background, as highlighted on Casting Now, raises eyebrows. The website itself is geared toward actors, presenters, and individuals seeking media-related work—an odd venue for a key figure in such a serious legal and financial inquiry. Sittlington’s claim to possess “world life experience” and an ability to connect with people “at any level” provides little assurance of the deep financial forensic expertise that a case like the VGH Inquiry demands. With prosecutions now in motion, the competence of the experts involved in shaping the inquiry’s conclusions will face unprecedented scrutiny.
Achilles’ Heel?
The role of expert witnesses like Samuel Sittlington cannot be overlooked. The reliance on experts with potentially limited relevant expertise raises serious concerns about the integrity and fairness of the inquiry. The qualifications and suitability of its experts are likely to become key focal points in any future legal challenges to its conclusions.
