The trial of Yorgen Fenech continues on Thursday morning, with police inspector Kurt Zahra expected to return to the witness stand for further cross-examination by the defence.
Wednesday's sitting was dominated by questions over the jury's isolation from outside reporting, after the tablets given to jurors were removed when the defence raised concerns that they may have been displaying local and international news headlines.
Fenech has pleaded not guilty to two principal charges: complicity in the wilful homicide of Daphne Caruana Galizia and criminal association to commit the murder.
Caruana Galizia, a columnist with The Malta Independent, was killed in a car bomb on 16 October 2017.
Five men have already been convicted in connection with Caruana Galizia's assassination. Vince Muscat admitted his role in the murder in 2021 and was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment. Alfred and George Degiorgio each received 40-year prison sentences after pleading guilty in 2022, while Robert Agius and Jamie Vella were sentenced to life imprisonment in 2025 for supplying the bomb used in the attack.
The prosecution is being led by Attorney General lawyers Godwin Cini, Anthony Vella and Danika Vella, assisted by Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud and Inspector Kurt Zahra. Fenech is represented by lawyers Charles Mercieca, Giannella de Marco and Gianluca Caruana Curran, while lawyers Therese Comodini Cachia and Jason Azzopardi are appearing parte civile on behalf of the Caruana Galizia family.
Judge Edwina Grima is presiding.
Please refresh for updates
10:09 The judge called a 15-minute recess.
10:07 Inspector Kurt Zahra returned to the courtroom and admitted that he had accessed Facebook, where he saw a post about a news article, took a screenshot, and read some of the comments, though he maintained he did not open the article itself.
The judge expressed strong disapproval, reminding Zahra of the clear instructions given to him to go home, speak to no one, and completely avoid any form of media coverage instead of being placed in formal sequestration. The judge noted that Zahra should not have viewed the Facebook post and was well aware that witnesses are not permitted to make unprompted statements or arguments directly to the jurors. Consequently, the judge announced that Zahra would be kept isolated during the upcoming break.
Zahra apologided, stating that he had always told the truth.
10:00 Mercieca dictated his submissions for the record, pointing out that Inspector Kurt Zahra had been aware of concerns regarding a discrepancy between his testimony and that of hitman Vince Muscat, even though those concerns had not been raised in the presence of Zahra or the jurors. Mercieca noted that Zahra had addressed the jurors by claiming the defence accused him of perjury and that the allegation was false, while simultaneously claiming he had neither spoken to anyone nor read any reports. The defence argued it was deeply concerning that Zahra possessed knowledge of matters discussed outside his presence despite promising isolation, and that he had inaccurately framed those matters to the jurors.
In response, the court ordered the jurors to disregard Zahra's remark that the defence had accused him of perjury, stating it would provide appropriate directions on the matter later. Furthermore, the court issued a stern warning to Zahra, cautioning him that failing to comply with judicial instructions regarding media isolation could result in legal proceedings against him.
9:54 An audio recording between Johann Cremona and Melvin Theuma was played in court, in which Theuma can be heard saying, "I've forgotten how much I begged them to catch them before they killed her for you."
When questioned about it, Inspector Kurt Zahra reiterated that he could not answer detailed questions about the recording because Inspector Keith Arnaud was the one who reviewed the audio files, though Zahra acknowledged he could not rule out having heard them during Theuma's interrogations.
Following this, defence lawyer Charles Mercieca raised a formal point of law. Mercieca pointed out that Zahra had just referenced an accusation of perjury made by the defence and noted that Zahra had previously given his word not to follow media reports while his testimony was ongoing. Because that specific accusation had never been mentioned in Zahra's presence in the courtroom, the defence argued he must have learned of it from external sources, adding that it was unacceptable for a lead investigator who remembered so many other minute details to suddenly claim a failure of memory regarding such crucial information.
The judge then addressed Zahra directly, asking how he became aware of the defence's accusation of perjury and the court's subsequent decree if he had avoided media access. Zahra explained that while he had access to media, he deliberately chose not to read anything to avoid becoming anxious, maintaining that during a trial he isolates himself and does not follow the news or speak to anyone. He added that he was completely certain about what Vince Muscat ("il-Koħħu") had said and knew he had not lied because his memory of the facts was clear.
Following this exchange, the witness was asked to leave the courtroom while the legal point was addressed.
9:34 When de Marco pointed to a specific audio recording involving Theuma and Johann Cremona - where Theuma allegedly states that "he kept telling me to kill him" and heavily implicates Keith Schembri - Zahra stated that he had not listened to the recordings himself, explaining that Inspector Keith Arnaud handled them and that the investigative team divided tasks. Zahra added that in the single recording he did listen to, Yorgen Fenech frequently mentioned Schembri only because Fenech claimed Schembri was passing information to him.
When de Marco asked if Arnaud failed to keep him updated, Zahra replied that they communicated, but not about every single detail. As the exchange continued over the contents of the undisclosed audio file, the judge intervened, instructing de Marco to properly identify the specific recording for the witness.
9:30 de Marco asked Inspector Kurt Zahra to read a letter from Melvin Theuma again. Zahra acknowledged Theuma's words, noting that although Keith Schembri was arrested in connection with the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, Theuma consistently maintained during questioning that Schembri had nothing to do with it, insisting instead that Yorgen Fenech -referred to as Yorgen ta' Tumas - was the one who commissioned the crime.
Zahra explained that police arrested Schembri because investigators established that, on the previous day, Schembri had passed a letter to Fenech through Dr Adrian Vella, and they also discovered messages exchanged between Schembri and Fenech on Fenech's phone right on the eve of Fenech's attempted escape.
Shifting to phone records, de Marco asked whether police found missed calls from Keith Schembri to Yorgen Fenech when Melvin Theuma was arrested. Zahra replied that Fenech had claimed Schembri called him around 30 times on the day Theuma was arrested, but forensic extraction and phone analysis revealed only four or five missed calls from Schembri between November 14 and 15.
9:21 During the continuation of the cross-examination, defence lawyer Giannella de Marco returned to the subject of searches linked to Keith Schembri, reminding Inspector Kurt Zahra that Melvin Theuma had previously stated the murder order came from Yorgen Fenech, and asked what Theuma specifically said regarding Schembri's role. Zahra reiterated that throughout the investigation, Theuma consistently maintained that Fenech was the principal mastermind behind the assassination.
When de Marco pressed further by asking whether a letter written by Theuma suggested otherwise, Zahra said that he would not interpret the letter and suggesting instead that the document be read again so that the jurors could draw their own conclusions and interpret its meaning themselves.
09:14 Before the cross-examination of Inspector Kurt Zahra continues, the judge informed the parties that IT expert Martin Bajada's report was ready.
She says that all the headlines that appeared on the jurors' tablets since 1 July are currently being printed. A copy will be provided to both parties, after which the court will give them time to review and assess the material.