It is the ongoing saga of three teenagers, collectively referred to as the El Hiblu 3, who were 15, 16 and 19 years old when they reached the safe port in Malta and were immediately detained. The reason for their detention was based on serious charges of terrorism, and could, if convicted, spend many years in prison.

Their 'terrorist' acts merely consisted of acting as translators when the 108 rescued migrants started to collectively protest their push-back to Libya, a war-torn country where migrants live in appalling conditions.

In our country, governed by laws and regulations, the principle of justice presumably stands as a cornerstone of our functional society. However, there are instances when the very system designed to ensure justice becomes a source of injustice.

There is broad international agreement that Libya cannot be regarded as a 'place of safety' where refugees and migrants rescued at sea can be disembarked under the international law of the sea. The forcible return of migrants to Libya would violate the core legal obligation of non-refoulement, a fundamental principle of international law, including refugee and human rights law, that prohibits states from returning, expelling, or extraditing individuals to a country where they face a serious risk of persecution, torture, inhuman treatment, or irreparable harm. It applies to all migrants, regardless of status, at border crossings and within a state's jurisdiction.

Despite multiple calls from various bodies, including Amnesty International, the OHCHR, the Aditus Foundation and President Emeritus Marie-Louise Coleiro Preca, for dropping all charges against them and for their immediate release, the prosecuting authorities appear adamant to go ahead.

So is this case an example of a misuse of our criminal justice system to deter people from attempting to seek safety in our country?

The boys did not engage in any violence or threats but were arrested upon disembarkation in Malta and charged with extremely serious offences, including terrorism, possibly carrying life imprisonment.

We should all be concerned that Maltese law criminalises as terrorism conduct that is not genuinely terrorist under international law. To add insult to injury, despite two of the boys being minors at the time, they were all detained in the high-security division of an adult prison, interrogated without appointed legal guardians, and detained for eight months before being granted bail. There were also procedural irregularities during the investigation.

We do not appear to have respected our international obligations to consider the best interests of the child in all decisions affecting them, to detain children only as a last resort and separate them from adults, to use juvenile, not adult, justice procedures, and to guarantee the right to a fair trial.

We should not punish or deter migrants and asylum seekers for seeking protection and expressing fear of return to places where their lives and fundamental rights are at risk.

To date, roundabout 50 hearings, seven years of legal limbo, two years of delay in inviting eyewitnesses from the rescued people to testify, and infinite delays of hearings and presenting the Bill of Indictment, it is difficult not to wonder about the overarching context of Malta's unique geopolitical situation, movement of people and the sea and the lives of the three now young men and what they could be like if they weren't caught up in legal limbo.

Can one not feel appalled at the hypocrisy of the authorities' stance?

For anyone who genuinely believes in the right to life, liberty, justice, compassion, humanity and solidarity, the greatest tragedy is not just the criminalisation of these three poor migrants in search of a better life but the failure of a nation to uphold the fundamental values of solidarity and justice.

Too many people have been pushed back or lost their lives in Maltese waters, with cries for help ignored and swallowed by the silence of bureaucracy. Too many times has Malta turned its back on those in need, neglecting its duty to rescue, delaying urgent calls, and choosing indifference over humanity.

Legality turns into injustice when the letter of the law is used to violate the spirit of justice, equity, and human rights. While law is a system of rules created by human institutions, injustice arises when these rules become tools for oppression, inequality, or corruption.

In the El Hiblu case, the legal system failed when it strictly enforced the law (the letter) while violating ethical principles (the spirit), also using procedural technicalities to deny rights. A law can be lawful on its face but unjust in its application.

Injustice becomes most dangerous when it disguises itself as legality, and when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.

Our legal system, though a bastion of justice, is not immune to the corrosive effects of power abuse. The El Hiblu saga shows us how power was egregiously misused, leaving indelible marks on three individuals who are losing out on what could have been a new start in their lives. These instances serve as stark reminders of the constant vigilance required to safeguard the integrity of legal institutions and ensure that power is exercised with responsibility and for the greater good.

Public opinion and media coverage have not managed to sway Maltese prosecuting authorities, who remain impervious to external pressures while being unresponsive to societal values and expectations.

In the meantime, we continue to deny three traumatised accused their fading chance of survival and a new life.

Dr Mark Said is a lawyer