Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1544415
3 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 15 APRIL 2026 NEWS JAMES DEBONO jdebono@mediatoday.com.mt Pisani guilty of Birkirkara striker cia identified those players as Steve Pisani and Jurgen Pisani. He said he immediately told Maia the matter would have to be passed on to Hermann Mula. Valencia also confirmed that he himself had been sent off during the match after unrest involving players from both teams after the first half. Steve Pisani also testified. He confirmed that he knew Maia from their time together at Gżira and admitted speaking to him during the game, but denied any corrupt intent. According to Steve, all he told Maia was, "How much you running today? You have a bonus." He said that later Maia came to him and said, "That was not nice of you." Steve claimed he asked Maia what had not been nice, but Maia did not answer, and he interpreted this as an attempt to distract him. Steve added that he told Maia, "Leave me to play. If you want to speak to me, you better speak in English." Steve also gave an explanation for the deleted WhatsApp chats similar to Jurgen's, saying it was normal for him to delete chats regularly and that the messag- es may have related to possible post-match celebrations if Santa Lucia had won. The court, how- ever, found this version wholly unconvincing, especially given Steve's close friendship with the accused and the implausibili- ty that both men, while direct- ly implicated in such a serious matter, would avoid ever dis- cussing it. Stephen Muscat, chairman of the MFA's Control, Disciplinary and Ethics Committee Integrity Panel, confirmed that the panel had previously dealt with a re- lated case against Jurgen Pisani in which both Maxuell Maia and Hermann Mula had testified. He explained that although Maia had also mentioned Ste- ve Pisani, no proceedings were taken against Steve before that panel. The defence argued that because the MFA had not found the accused guilty, the crimi- nal court should be guided by that result. The court rejected that argument, stressing that an MFA disciplinary decision could not influence a criminal court operating under a differ- ent legislative and procedural framework, especially when that decision had not even been for- mally exhibited in the criminal proceedings. The accused's testimony in court Jurgen Pisani also chose to testify. He told the court that he was not only a professional footballer but also a physical ed- ucation teacher employed by the Ministry for Education. He said that at the time of the incident he had been seconded to the Malta Olympic Committee but that this ended after criminal charges were brought against him. He described the Santa Lu- cia-Birkirkara fixture as crucial, because Santa Lucia needed a win to survive in the Premier League. He accepted that Maia had entered before the end of the first half and acknowledged that, as a defender marking a striker, they naturally came into close contact. He also described one physical incident in which he tackled Maia, Maia fell over the ball, and the referee stopped play for a foul. The court later noted that this in itself showed there had been enough proxim- ity and time for words to have been exchanged. Pisani nevertheless denied speaking to Maia at any point, denied covering his mouth, de- nied referring to Steve, and de- nied ever offering money. He relied on match footage from TVM, insisting that he "did not speak to anyone" and "did none of this." Court's reasoning and verdict The court said the defence rested on two theories: first, that the story had been invented to damage Jurgen Pisani or Santa Lucia FC; second, that Maia did not understand English and had misunderstood what was said. The court rejected both. It found no evidence that Maia had any motive to invent such a story. On the contrary, the court said Maia's account carried credibility because he had drawn a clear distinction between Ste- ve Pisani and Jurgen Pisani: Ste- ve had spoken to him, but only Jurgen had offered him money. If Maia had wanted to fabricate or embellish, the court noted, he could easily have falsely accused Steve of offering money too. The court also rejected the suggestion that Maia did not understand English. It noted that Maia reported the matter immediately in English to Va- lencia, later spoke with police without an interpreter and re- mained consistent throughout all stages of the proceedings. It also found it significant that Ste- ve Pisani himself had chosen to speak to Maia in English during the match, which made little sense if Steve genuinely believed Maia could not understand him. The court found Maia to be calm, consistent, and credible, while it found the evidence of Jurgen Pisani and Steve Pisani confused, implausible, and un- convincing. It attached particu- lar weight to Maia's consistency and to the weakness of the ex- planations surrounding the de- leted chats. The court therefore found Ju- rgen Pisani guilty on the first charge, namely manipulation of a sporting event. It acquit- ted him on the second charge, holding that a person accused of committing the manipula- tion offence could not also be required to report himself, as this would violate his right to silence. In sentencing, the court con- sidered the seriousness of the offence, Pisani's clean criminal record, and the fact that the Pre- vention of Corruption in Sport Act treats such conduct severe- ly. Evidence was also heard from Shirley Bunce of the People and Standards Division, who con- firmed that Pisani was a public officer employed as a supply teacher, which triggered an ag- gravating circumstance under the Act. The court sentenced Jurgen Pisani to 15 months' imprison- ment. It also disqualified him from participating in or attending any sporting event, and from being present on the premises of any sporting organisation for a pe- riod of 10 years. In addition, it ordered his general perpetual interdiction and directed that the judgment be published in the Government Gazette. Inspector Wayne Rodney Borg prosecuted. Magistrate Donatella Fren- do Dimech handed down the judgement. Attard fuel station proposal withdrawn after case officer flags policy breach AN application to relocate a petrol station from Ta' Xbiex to Attard has been withdrawn fol- lowing the submission of a case officer's report recommending outright refusal due to policy breaches and environmental concerns. The proposal, filed by Charles Mifsud, sought full develop- ment permission to construct a new fuel station on vacant land at Ta' San Martin along Triq l-Imdina. The development includ- ed fuel pumps, a car wash, a workshop, a Class 4B shop, EV charging points, underground fuel tanks and staff facilities. However, the case officer con- cluded that the proposal funda- mentally conflicted with the 2020 Fuel Service Station Poli- cy, particularly because the site lies outside the development zone (ODZ) and lacks any form of prior development commit- ment. While the policy allows the relocation of existing fuel sta- tions, it strictly limits where such facilities can be sited. In this case, the proposed Attard site does not qualify under any of the permissible categories. Crucially, it is not covered by a valid development permit nor does it host pre-1967 struc- tures—conditions required for ODZ eligibility under the pol- icy. The report also flagged signif- icant environmental concerns. The site is currently agricul- tural land and lies close to sen- sitive watercourses, including Wied ta' San Martin. The En- vironment and Resources Au- thority (ERA) objected to the development, warning it would result in unnecessary land take- up and the formalisation of a largely untouched rural area. Cultural heritage impacts were also flagged. The Super- intendence of Cultural Herit- age noted the site's proximity to key visual corridors towards Mdina, stressing the impor- tance of safeguarding views of the historic skyline. Objections were additionally filed by NGOs including Din l-Art Ħelwa and Moviment Graffiti, citing conflicts with rural and strategic planning policies. Despite meeting some cri- teria—such as being located more than 500 metres from an- other fuel station and providing adequate parking—the applica- tion was deemed unacceptable in principle. The case officer recommend- ed refusal on the grounds that the development violates fuel station policy and undermines rural protection objectives. The application was subsequently withdrawn before reaching the Planning Board.