Lawyers have filed an appeal on behalf of Stephen Egbo, a Nigerian man fighting a 13 years jail term accompanied by a €30,000 fine for being found guilty to conspiring to import cocaine from the Netherlands in 2010.

The defence team is making the case that the jury’s lead witness is not credible, having pointed out a number of consistencies in his testimony over various sittings.

In July, Egbo, 39 from San Gwann, was found guilty by a jury, with seven votes against two, of conspiring to import cocaine.

The initial case dates back to November 2010, when Attila Somlyai, a Romanian national, was intercepted by the police when arriving in Malta for Düsseldorf. After being taken to Mater Dei hospital and examined, Somlyai was found with 60 capsules of cocaine hidden in his stomach, worth some €44,000.

The Romanian is currently serving nine years imprisonment and is the leading witness where the prosecution is making the case that the drugs brought down by Somlyai were intended for Egbo. The credibility of the witness is a crucial point for both the defense and the prosecution. 

Egbo had subsequently been arrested during a controlled delivery operation, and was charged with intending to pick the drugs up from Somilyai, who had arrived from a Dusseldorf flight.

Lawyers Simon Micallef Stafrace and Marc Sant, representing the appellant, are basing their arguments on the evidence presented in court, contending that they showed no involvement on behalf of Egbo with any drug conspiracy. It was Somalyai who pointed his fingers at Egbo, and without the former’s testimony there would be absolutely nothing tying Egbo to the case, the lawyers argued.

Micallef Stafrace and Sant reminded the court that, in addition to the several inaccuracies and misguided statements made by the Romanian national, he negotiated a lesser prison sentence through his cooperation and therefore had a vested interest.

They highlighted the illogicalness of Egbo being the contact for Somylai, and that the former was allegedly planning to meet the latter to pay for the drugs, when no money was found on Egbo or at his home. This, the lawyers argued, proves that the appellant was not the contact person for the delivery.

Another shortcoming was the fact that records from a phone call allegedly made by Somaylai to Egbo, using a police phone, was never exhibited in court therefore the presiding judge would just have to take the witness’ word for it.

Worse still, it transpired that the Romanian had been speaking to his foreign contact using the police phone in Hungarian, and no translator had been presented to ascertain what was said in the call. The defence lawyers stressed what a big shortcoming this was.

Inaccuracies were then pointed out in the description of Egbo’s physical features at the time of the controlled delivery.