An already landmark court case on Thursday took another incredible twist, after the prosecution’s star witness refused to name some of his accomplices in a heist on a bank.

Some weeks ago, Darren Debono, known as it-Topo, was the beneficiary of a plea deal over his involvement in the botched 2010 HSBC heist, a deal which saw him sent to prison for 10 years but have the charge of attempted murder against police officers involved in the resulting shootout on that day dropped.

Debono’s first words however after the court refused defendant Vince Muscat’s lawyers’ request for constitutional reference to decide whether or not Debono’s testimony was admissible were that he would only be testifying against Muscat.

“Was Vince one of the men who went inside?” the Inspector leading the prosecution asked. The witness replied in the affirmative. “Who were the others?”

“Two other accomplices,” replied Debono, repeatedly refusing to give up the names of his fellow bank robbers.

The Court ordered the witness to tell the whole truth. “I am giving you a final warning. You mentioned accomplices apart from Vince Muscat, who were they?”

“I cannot open my mouth, madam Magistrate. I don’t want to put my son’s life at risk,” Debono said.

Debono remained steadfast in his refusal to answer, and was ultimately rearrested and arraigned on Friday, where he pleaded guilty to refusing to testify.

The way in which this situation has developed is extremely concerning.

The Attorney General’s decision to grant a plea deal with a shortened sentence and with the apparent forgiveness of a very serious charge in the attempted murder of police officers on the eve of the start of the trial against Vince Muscat had already raised eyebrows.

Many questioned why the AG had opted for such a plea deal, particularly as Debono’s past itself is not particularly rosy, and given that he has been convicted of perjury in another case.  There was more criticism for the AG’s decision to exclude the attempted murder charge altogether as well.

Now that Debono has been rearrested after he refused to testify fully in the case, the number of questions increase and the questions themselves loom larger.

Did the prosecution know that Debono would not testify against his other alleged accomplices in the heist? 

If they did, then was the plea deal they offered Debono – particularly with the dropping of the attempted murder charge – really worth it?  If they didn’t, then it exposes a startling and inexcusable level of incompetence on the prosecution’s side.

Furthermore, could the police not provide enough safety to Debono’s family in order to provide the security for Debono to be able to testify?  Or are we truly living in a state where the tentacles of organised crime can trump any form of safety and security provided by the country’s authorities?

Another question which has to be pondered is whether, after this situation, Victoria Buttigieg’s position as Attorney General remains tenable.

The handling of this case and how it has played out – particularly if this was not a scenario which was foreseen by the prosecution and especially if it has a long-term bearing on the case against Muscat – makes us believe that it isn’t.

It remains to be seen how this case will develop – particularly as it’s not even clear now whether Debono’s plea deal still actually stands.

One only hopes now that the course of justice is not affected by this fiasco.