Adrian Agius, Robert Agius and Jamie Vella have filed Constitutional proceedings in which they argue that members of Cabinet who are under investigation for the Daphne Caruana Galizia murder got to decide on who to pardon in return for information on the same murder.
Robert Agius and Vella stand accused of having supplied the bomb used to blow up Caruana Galizia in the October 2017 car explosion.
Adrian Agius stands accused of commissioning the murder lawyer Carmel Chircop who was gunned down in October 2015 inside a Birkirkara garage complex
The court application filed before the First Hall of the Civil Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction by lawyers Alfred Abela and Rene Darmanin explains that for several reasons, the trajectory of the criminal proceedings against brothers Adrian and Robert Agius and Jamie Vella is in breach of their fundamental human rights, as enshrined in the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
The lawyers argued that on the one hand, the Public Inquiry into the murder concluded that several State entities, precisely the executive and in particular, Cabinet, had to bear responsibility for this assassination and on the other hand, the same Cabinet “puts on a judge’s hat and effectively decides who from the accused in the same murder should be given a pardon, what punishment the executor of the assassination should be given and even do so whilst listening to what this assassin knows and afterwards determining whether this knowledge will affect one or more members of the same executive.”
It was also pointed out that several cabinet members were being investigated over their involvement in the murder “and then the same Cabinet, for reasons known only to the Cabinet, chooses to give a pardon…to Vincent Muscat.” This was in breach of their fundamental right to a fair trial, they said.
Attorney General’s participation in plea bargaining with Vincent Muscat
It is proven beyond reasonable doubt that the AG had reached an agreement with Vincent Muscat over his punishment in return for information, said the lawyers. “With all due respect, however…even this decision by the AG does not appear to be impartial or much less independent.”
That the Office of the AG had been taken over by the executive arm of the State was not something the plaintiffs were saying, but had been exposed by the Public Inquiry Board into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, argued Agius’ defence. The inquiry board had harshly criticised not only the office of the AG but had also criticised Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg personally, over her advice on the Electrogas deal, added the lawyers.
Prosecution’s human rights abuse against Adrian Agius
Agius’ lawyers argued that the prosecution had “unilaterally chosen, for reasons known only to it”, to deal with two completely separate and distinct homicides together in one set of court proceedings.
This led to Agius having to suffer delays while the court heard witnesses and evidence which had “absolutely nothing to do with him,” thereby breaching his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time.
Agius’ lawyers asked the court to declare that the defendants had breached his Constitutional and Conventional rights, order them to pay fitting compensation to the plaintiff and order that all decisions leading to the breach are to have no effect on their case.