The case was raised in parliament, and the minister answered with a joke.

The case did reach parliament, the questions did cover police evidence-gathering, and the minister did answer one of them with a joke rather than with facts.

An opposition MP asked two questions about the police response

Nationalist MP Beppe Galea put two written questions to Home Affairs Minister Glenn Bedingfield about the alleged incident at a farmhouse in Xewkija during the night between 22 and 23 September 2026. Galea sits on the opposition benches, and Bedingfield has held the Home Affairs portfolio since 4 June 2026.

The first question asked how many police officers were sent to the scene on the night and how long they stayed there. The second asked whether the police went back to the house after that first call-out, and what investigative steps were taken, including whether statements were taken, inspections carried out or evidence gathered.

The reply to the second question was a joke

Bedingfield's written reply to the second question was one line: “The requested information has disappeared!” In the Maltese original, “L-informazzjoni mitluba sparixxiet!”

The reply was reported on 6 and 7 October 2026 by The Malta Independent, Lovin Malta and Newsbook, all of which read it as a play on the ghost story rather than as a statement that records were missing. No outlet reported that the minister later gave the figures.

The other question got a holding answer

The first question, on how many officers attended and for how long, was not answered with a joke. Newsbook reported that the minister said the information was still being collected. That is the usual holding reply in the Maltese parliament, and it means the facts on the police response were never actually given either.

What the police had already said

The police confirmed in September that they received a call for help on the emergency number at about 2am, that officers went to the house and found the group outside, that nobody needed medical attention, and that their checks ruled out the involvement of third parties. So some information about the response was already public before the questions were put.

Evaluation

What was said holds on every point. The case was raised in parliament, it was raised by the opposition, the questions covered whether statements were taken and evidence gathered, and the minister answered that one with a joke about the information disappearing.

There were in fact two questions, not one, and the first got a holding reply instead of a joke. That does not cut against the claim, because the question the speaker described, the one about evidence and statements, is the one that got the joke.