The defence in Yorgen Fenech's trial by jury closed its case in half a morning on Wednesday, calling just three witnesses before resting, as the proceedings moved into the final stage with the prosecution beginning its closing submissions.
Addressing the jurors, prosecutor Anthony Vella argued that the evidence presented over the past two months points in one direction only, insisting that Fenech's own recorded conversations, payments and actions corroborate the testimony of middleman Melvin Theuma and demonstrate his involvement in the plot to assassinate journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia.
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
17:42 The prosecution argues that the chat is admissible because Josef Gerada testified about it and confirmed that he was the person who used the device on which it was found.
Its probative value, the prosecution argues, is ultimately a matter for the jury.
The jurors remain outside the courtroom. Their table sits empty, with bright yellow files still laid out in front of them.
The judge says she will adjourn until tomorrow to consider the matter properly.
"We'll continue tomorrow at 9. I want to take an unrushed look at it."
The defence asks the court not to lose half an hour over the issue, suggesting it skip the point and move on to the next part of the address.
Vella is currently out of the courtroom. At the lectern, prosecuting lawyer Danika Vella flips through the thick sheaf of notes on the lectern as the prosecution works out where to pick up the address.
The judge ultimately adjourns the case until 9am tomorrow. Thank you for following, a roundup of today's key points will be uploaded on our website shortly.
17:34 Mercieca adds that the chats are not even available on the jurors' tablets.
"I don't think the prosecution can even talk about them," he says.
The defence accepts that the material may be admissible but argues that it carries no probative value.
There had been several witnesses who exhibited transcripts of statements, Mercieca points out, but that alone does not make their contents evidence.
"It only comes into play when it is put to the witness," he says.
Vella then asks for the defence's oral submissions to be read back to him. The court does so.
17:33 The defence raises what it calls "documentary hearsay", objecting to Vella reading verbatim from chats between Melvin Theuma and Mario Degiorgio during his reply.
Neither Theuma nor Degiorgio was questioned about the contents of those chats during the trial, the defence points out. Degiorgio was never even called as a prosecution witness.
The chats were therefore never authenticated by either participant or have no evidential value, the defence argues.
They amount to "documentary hearsay".
It is therefore improper, the defence submits, for Vella to read from the chats during his reply when their contents were never put to the relevant witnesses - and never brought to the jury's attention.
Meanwhile, prosecutor Anthony Vella asks for a two-minute break to step out of the hall.
17:16 The judge points out that the chats were never brought to the jury's attention and cannot simply be introduced during the prosecution's closing address.
"You should have asked Melvin Theuma to testify about it when he was on the stand. We are hearing this chat for the first time today."
Prosecutor Anthony Vella insists the material was already in the acts.
Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca objects again. "A document is not evidence until it has been confirmed by its author", he says. "As far as I know, the chat between Theuma and the third Degiorgio brother was never referred to during the trial."
Vella insists the material was already in the acts.
He adds that witness Josef Gerada has already testified to the chat's existence, confirming that he had extracted it from the devices.
17:12 Vella starts quoting from chats between Theuma and Mario Degiorgio, including a quip about lawyers' fees: "The lawyers made out pretty well!"
Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca asks to address the court, and the jury is sent out.
"I think you know what this is about," Mercieca says, asking Vella to identify where he is reading the material from.
"It's in the acts," Vella replies.
"I can't take this anymore, madam," Mercieca says.
17:08 Prosecutor Anthony Vella said he had expected Fenech to use his time on the witness stand to give his side of the story and address the allegations against him. However, after just four hours in the witness box, Fenech had not addressed the recordings or clarified parts of what he had said during his interrogation.
Vella noted that while Fenech's testimony lasted only a few hours, the prosecution spent around three days cross-examining him. Godwin Cini then leaned over and reminded Vella that, during his interrogation, Fenech had repeatedly asked for a confrontation.
"Now that Fenech had the stand, I expected him to ask for a courtroom confrontation with Keith Schembri, or with Melvin Theuma," Vella said.
He recalled that Fenech had said in his statement that he would speak "at the right moment". Vella argued that the opportunity had eventually come.
"He had the chance to confront the man who told him, 'You ordered the murder, you paid for the murder' - and he yet did choose not to."
Vella said the same applied to other witnesses, including Adrian Vella and Johann Cremona, noting that no confrontation had been requested.
17:02 Prosecutor Anthony Vella suggested that commercial ties, alongside friendship, could explain why Fenech may have wanted to shield Keith Schembri after learning what had happened.
Vella reminded the jury that the two men were both friends and businessmen, while pointing to a recording in which Fenech referred to "what Keith Schembri did for me."
He also referred to Schembri's reaction when he learned of Fenech's alleged involvement in the murder, saying he was stunned by the revelation.
Vella further highlighted Theuma's words to Johann - "Yorgen had no business wanting this" - stressing that they were made around the time of the murder, rather than after Fenech's arrest.
16:59 Prosecutor Anthony Vella acknowledged that the defence was entitled to put forward Keith Schembri as an alternative mastermind, but said that theory still had to be reconciled with the evidence.
"What is there to show what someone knew before the murder? What did they find out afterwards? What did they do with that information - pass it on, offer a job, or keep the recordings under control?"
Vella pointed to the recordings involving Fenech, saying, "We have not heard recordings of Keith Schembri, because they do not exist."
He said the defence could advance an alternative theory, but first had to explain the evidence linking Theuma directly to the case, including the money and the exchange in which Theuma said, "I gave you €150,000," and Fenech replied, "I remember."
Vella reminded jurors that every allegation must be supported by evidence. During the address, prosecutor Godwin Cini occasionally leaned over to whisper suggestions to Vella, who incorporated them into his argument, saying, "My colleague is telling me..."
16:55 The prosecution referred to another Signal exchange between Yorgen Fenech and Melvin Theuma, which prosecutor Anthony Vella said began with ordinary conversation before moving into more revealing territory.
Vella highlighted Theuma's question, "Did Kenneth fall from the sky?" arguing that it was rhetorical and suggested that someone must have brought Kenneth into the picture, with Theuma wanting to know who had sent him and what role he had been given.
Vella said this was where Theuma's role as the middleman became significant. "Theuma says he is being blackmailed because he could expose Fenech. But if Fenech were innocent, what would Theuma have to hold over him?"
Vella told jurors that only Theuma could expose Fenech, linking this back to the €120,000 conversation and Fenech's own recollection of handing Theuma substantial sums of money.
16:42 Prosecutor Anthony Vella pointed to Theuma telling Fenech that il-Fulu, il-Koħħu and iċ-Ċiniż did not know him, insisting, "Certainly not. Your name was never mentioned."
Vella argued that Fenech failed to ask the obvious questions an innocent person might have asked: why was Theuma mentioning these men to him, who were they, and why were they being discussed in connection with him?
"There are a million things someone who was not involved - someone protesting his innocence so strongly - could have said," Vella told the jury.
Instead, Vella said, Fenech was only concerned with confirming that the three men did not know his name.
"Why would someone ask whether three men who had just killed someone knew his name - unless that person was involved?" Vella asked.
16:40 Proceedings have resumed in Hall 22, with defence lawyer Charles Mercieca asking whether Prosecutor Anthony Vella expects to finish his closing address today.
"There's still a fair bit to go," came the response from the prosecution bench.
It appears the prosecution's closing address will continue for some time before Vella concludes and the defence gets its turn to address the jury.
16:11 Prosecutor Anthony Vella, speaking in his usual measured and slightly halting style, asked the court for a break.
The judge granted the request, with proceedings set to resume at 4.15pm.
16:10 Prosecutor Anthony Vella told the jury that Fenech himself had even brought his own doctor into the situation.
"Because of Yorgen, someone attempted suicide, another lost their business, someone ended up in prison..." Vella said. "The list goes on."
Vella noted that Fenech repeatedly spoke about bringing Keith Schembri down with him because Schembri had not stood by him. However, he reminded jurors that only one person was on trial.
"But keep this in mind: there is only one accused before you - Yorgen Fenech. Your task is to decide his case."
Vella then reminded the jury that Schembri had testified that when Fenech spoke to him, he let on that he was involved in Daphne Caruana Galizia's murder.
"Schembri said he froze," Vella said, noting that Fenech himself had also confirmed this account.
16:03 Vella highlights that Melvin Theuma had thrown away a piece of meat Fenech gave him in 2019 because he believed it had been poisoned.
Fenech had also brought him children's Lego sets and vapes, telling him to pick one himself so Theuma would not suspect that he was trying to poison him.
Vella says this gives an indication of the hold Fenech had over Theuma.
"Theuma told the court he was afraid." With hindsight, Vella says, that fear takes on a different meaning given that Fenech was at the time ordering weapons through the dark web.
15:52 Vella quotes from messages exchanged in November 2019:
Yorgen: "I'll fight to the end to get our way."
Yorgen: "And I'll do everything I can for us to avoid it."
Yorgen: "We'll get through this, and God willing, we'll get out of it for good."
Theuma: "Mate, we'd better sort out the issue with the women, because I know that our lives will be over."
Yorgen: "I know. I won't stop."
"Someone who isn't involved doesn't speak in the plural."
15:49 "Sometimes you wish you could have been a fly on the wall, eavesdropping on what was going on," prosecutor Anthony Vella tells the jury. "But thanks to the recordings, we now know exactly what passed between Yorgen Fenech and Melvin Theuma."
The defence may argue that Theuma chose when to record, steered the conversation towards certain subjects or even asked leading questions.
"But, ladies and gentlemen, he could not get inside the other person's head and plant a memory that was never there," Vella says.
"He could not make him remember an amount if that amount meant nothing to him. He could raise the subject, but he could not put the answers into his mouth.
The answers came from Yorgen Fenech himself," Vella says.
15:45 Earlier, the defence closed its case without calling any further witnesses, surprising many in the courtroom who had expected several more people to take the stand.
Joseph Muscat, Chris Cardona, Angelo Gafà and former president George Vella were all on the defence's witness list but none were ultimately called to testify.
15:43 Prosecutor Anthony Vella says Fenech had attempted to buy weapons through the dark web - two hand grenades, two Glocks with suppressors, two automatic rifles and 700 to 800 rounds of ammunition.
"I'm reminded of the films we used to watch when we were young - the films of Rambo," Vella says. "He had a whole arsenal!"
15:41 "Thank God Melvin recorded the conversations in which Yorgen admits his guilt," prosecutor Anthony Vella says.
The defence urged the jury in its address not to become Theuma's "lifebuoy"
"But Melvin's lifebuoy is the recordings," Vella says. "He made them so that he would be believed."
The defence did not refer to a single recording, Vella says.
"They want you to forget these recordings because they are the clearest evidence."
As the address goes on, the defence lawyers quietly confer from time to time, otherwise keeping busy on their devices.
Defence lawyer Gianella De Marco scrolls through her phone while lawyer Charles Mercieca works away on his laptop.
15:35 Prosecutor Anthony Vella runs through the finer details of Theuma's presidential pardon, describing it as a way of breaking omertà.
The defence says Theuma breached the pardon and lied. But what, Vella asks, does Theuma stand to gain by protecting someone else?
"Melvin is not getting anything by protecting anyone," he argues. "If anything, he has something to lose."
He says the defence's claim that Theuma is lying to protect someone is a red herring designed to muddy the waters.
"Remember, the 'Daphne Caruana Galizia's laptop campaign' was aimed at muddying the waters."
15:29 Prosecutor Anthony Vella points out that Theuma was quite close to the Fenech family, and he rented the premises to Fenech, on which Fenech and Theuma operated their business.
The prosecution rubbishes the defence's suggestion that Theuma held the upper hand. If anything, the power ran the other way, with Theuma doing even the simplest errands for Fenech, including buying him bread, Vella says.
Theuma summed up the imbalance himself: "I feel like a mosquito next to a giant."
"Theuma is not a saint," Vella repeats. But that, he argues, does not mean his evidence should be thrown out.
"And if Theuma needed a favour - even over something as mundane as a boundary wall in a field - it was Fenech he would turn to," Vella argues.
15:26 Theuma may be a little hazy on dates, prosecutor Anthony Vella concedes, but he never claimed to remember the exact day of the alleged order.
"He placed it at around three weeks before the 2017 general election."
Vella recalls himself getting married that year. He says he remembers the month, but sometimes even forgets the date - and he has to check against his wedding ring.
"I hope my wife isn't listening," he quips.
Dates, he says, are simply not everyone's strong suit.
15:22 Prosecutor Anthony Vella continues with his closing speech: "Theuma never gave us a date. He said it was before the election, and the plan was to come into fruition after the election."
The defence has pointed to Fenech's time abroad as a reason to question that chronology.
But Vella points out that the jury has not been shown hotel bills or card records to establish exactly where Fenech was or for how long during his stay in the United States, and that there was still a window at the beginning of April when the two could have met.
"Theuma had testified that a few days after Fenech allegedly gave him the order to kill Daphne Caruana Galizia, Fenech called and told him that Sandro Craus from Castille would be contacting him."
"And that is what happened," Vella says.
"Melvin's account is not contradicted by the actual happenings."
15:10 Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca says that at minute 41 of Fenech's interrogation, he was asked about keeping "him" - Melvin Theuma - calm and "under control", not "them", as prosecutor Anthony Vella put it in his closing address.
"Did I say 'them'?" Vella asks.
"Yes," the judge confirms.
"Several times!" comes the retort from the defence bench.
The distinction in the pronouns used matters because Vella had argued that it made no sense for Fenech, as someone uninvolved in the murder, to tell Theuma to keep those involved in it "under control".
Mercieca's point is that Fenech specifically said that only Theuma, and not others, had to be kept under control.
13:02 Vella is seated in the middle of the three prosecution lawyers, with Danika Vella to his right and Godwin Cini to his left. They occasionally pass him papers as he speaks.
At the table to his right sit parte civile lawyers Jason Azzopardi and Therese Comodini Cachia, who watch him intently. The court adjourned proceedings for lunch. We will be back at 3pm.
13:00 In a signal message recording, Fenech is heard telling Theuma: "Leave it to me. I'll see if I can work something out so I can get the hitmen a mobile phone in prison."
Why, Prosecutor Anthony Vella asks, would someone who claims to be completely outside the murder have these conversations with a middleman involved in it?
"There is only one answer. We have to use our common sense.
"There is no other way of looking at it except that he was involved."
12:54 The prosecution, before bringing this case, made sure Theuma's account was corroborated, Prosecutor Anthony Vella tells the jury - "by the recordings, Fenech's own words, the payment amounts and the information passed on."
"It was also corroborated by hitman Vince Muscat, il-Koħħu, who confirmed the timing of events.
Why would an outsider with nothing to do with the murder need to tell anyone to keep people involved in a murder 'under control?'"
"You are the CEO of a group of large companies. Would you do this? Would you let Melvin Theuma come into your office, into the office of the chairman, and tell you, 'Remember, you gave me €150,000' - and you reply, 'I remember'?"
12:50 Vella speaks about a recording in which Theuma tells Fenech: "You gave me the €150,000."
Prosecutor Anthony Vella points out that Fenech replied: "I remember."
"Those words carry enormous weight," Vella says. "He does not deny it. He does not ask, 'Why are you telling me this?' Fenech was armed with the knowledge that this man was involved in Daphne Caruana Galizia's murder?".
"He says: 'I remember.'
"That is an admission that he handed him the €150,000."
12:47 "You have an important role here. You have heard two versions of Yorgen Fenech: the Yorgen Fenech who took the stand, and the Yorgen Fenech the evidence knows all too well."
Prosecutor Anthony Vella says the Fenech heard on the recordings was not addressing the jury or the prosecution, but speaking to his accomplice, Melvin Theuma.
"When someone takes the stand, they know the charge against them, they know the evidence, they know where the danger lies. Their reactions are far less spontaneous. The pressure is there, and so is the evidence."
12:42 Prosecutor Vella points out Yorgen Fenech repeatedly used the word "mistake" in the recordings - "the biggest mistake of my life", "I made a mistake", "I wasn't strong enough", "I didn't have that strong a character".
"We can accept that everyone makes mistakes," Vella says. "But there is a difference between a mistake and a course of conduct."
"If, after those first mistakes, you carry on passing on messages and information, keep handing over money, ask for more information, warn the police, help keep someone calm, and get your business partner Johann Cremona to step in and keep middleman Melvin Theuma quiet..."
Vella says the investigation into Caruana Galizia's murder remains ongoing.
He explains that an inquiry was suspended after its evidence was incorporated into the acts of these proceedings, but police later asked for it to be reopened to investigate third parties who may also have been involved in the murder.
"Rest assured that any new evidence will be gathered through that inquiry now that it has been reopened," Vella says.
Vella then picks up on a line used by prosecutor Godwin Cini at the end of his cross-examination:
"Your fingerprints are all over this case."
12:33 Vella says Fenech told the jury that Melvin Theuma came to him with a USB containing recordings.
Vella says Fenech said he had never listened to them, yet he also said he knew they contained recordings of Keith Schembri.
"And what did he do with the USB?," Vella asks.
"He gave it to Schembri."
In his testimony, Fenech put it plainly: "I gave it to them. I got rid of it."
"Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the defence's theory is right," Vella says. "You have this middleman in a murder who is trying to implicate Keith Schembri, who, in your view, is the real mastermind.
"Now a piece of evidence lands in your lap - recordings that could tell you who the real mastermind is. What do you do?
"You keep them. You make a copy. You hand them to your lawyer. You put them somewhere safe.
"But Yorgen Fenech does the opposite. He hands them to Keith Schembri - the very person he now says is responsible."
12:28 Prosecutor Anthony Vella points out that Fenech testified that Theuma told him: "They want €120,000."
"But if we look at the statement that he gave the police, two words jump out at you: 'your share will be'."
He says that "On the witness stand, Fenech said: 'They want €120,000'."
"In his statement, however, he said Theuma told him: 'Your share will be €120,000'."
"The words 'Your share will be' implicate him," Vella says.
"The accused himself, when he was told 'your share will be', replied: 'I'll speak to you.' He admits guilt."
"Why did he change tack on the stand?" Vella asks. "What difference does it make?
"It makes a difference because it shows his role in the murder. It implicates him."
Fenech, Vella says, "ended up lying on the witness stand".
12:22 Prosecutor Anthony Vella says that even if someone is deemed an accomplice, the law can still hold them criminally responsible to the same extent as the person who ordered the crime.
The prosecution has heard the defence attack the investigation, he says.
"No investigation is perfect. They are carried out by human beings, and investigators, like all of us, have their shortcomings."
He compares the case to a plate of evidence - a menu set before the jury. "Taste only what is on that plate," he tells them.
"Your job is to decide guilt or innocence on the evidence before them, he says."
Vella says the investigations into the murder are still ongoing, and new charges could arise.
"I would not dare say that the story ends with Yorgen Fenech," Vella says.
12:16 'He who alleges must prove,' Vella says.
And the prosecution's burden of proof is not the "certainty" the defence spoke about yesterday, Prosecutor Anthony Vella says.
It is proof beyond reasonable doubt - not beyond any doubt.
"Bottom line, remember this and keep it in front of you: there is one accused, one and only one. This is Yorgen Fenech's trial, and nobody else's.
"We cannot play the investigators. You are the judges of fact."
Vella gestures as he speaks, a pen in his right hand. His notes lie open on the lectern in front of him, packed with dense paragraphs.
The jurors watch him, occasionally jotting down notes.
Prosecutor Anthony Vella points out that before 2006, it went further, requiring such evidence to be corroborated by other evidence.
But Theuma's testimony is backed up by other evidence and witnesses, Vella says - "over and above" what the law requires.
12:10 Prosecutor Anthony Vella thanks the jury for being engaged.
He praises them for asking questions throughout the trial.
He says Fenech is guilty of ordering Daphne Caruana Galizia's murder.
"This is the case that heard from a man who was at the heart of this conspiracy," Vella says, referring to Melvin Theuma as the "middleman".
"Melvin Theuma is someone who has lived this conspiracy from the inside. We call him the middleman. And because he feared for his life, he recorded his conversations with the accused, who is heard admitting guilt and involvement in the murder."
12:08 Prosecution lawyer Anthony Vella opens by recalling words Yorgen Fenech allegedly told Melvin Theuma:
"No one can touch me. You're the only one I'm worried about. Nobody else can lay a finger on me (jitnejjek bija), and I'll keep you with me forever."
"Ladies and gentlemen, these are the words Yorgen Fenech said to Melvin Theuma because he thought that, with the wealth he had, he could even buy justice," Vella says.
He also recalls Fenech telling Theuma: "Our strength is money."
"The defence began its address by reminding you that this is a 'trial about power'," Vella says.
"Assistant Commissioner Keith Arnaud told us that we must let the evidence guide us. That is exactly what I will do. I will base everything on the evidence."
12:01 The prosecution rests its case.
The defence has no further questions.
No more witnesses are expected to be called.
After dozens of prosecution witnesses and three defence witnesses, the trial will now move on to closing submissions from both sides.
The prosecution will go first.
Prosecutor Anthony Vella will open the closing arguments.
The judge will then address the jurors before they retire to consider their verdict.
11:57 The judge asks what documents Chris Frendo means when he says material was leaked.
"Pieces of emails," he says. Sometimes the names of the senders were removed, sometimes they were not.
On one occasion, an email he had sent personally was leaked. He says it's a testament to the damage caused when someone takes an email out of context and changes its meaning, Chris Frendo says.
The judge then cuts in, warning the prosecution that she will not allow Frendo to testify about Electrogas's internal workings.
"If you wanted to do that, you should have brought an Electrogas witness yourselves," she tells the prosecution.
11:50 Chris Frendo says Electrogas did not report the suspicious keyword searches at the time because of fears of media fallout.
As nothing had appeared in the press, the company decided to contain the matter rather than report it, he says.
Prosecution lawyer Godwin Cini points out that on May 25, four days before the keyword search had happened, Daphne Caruana Galizia had published a blog post headlined: "BREAKING: trouble brews at Electrogas power station."
Frendo replies that he cannot say why someone unauthorised carried out the searches.
At the time the post was published, he says, Electrogas was focused on securing financing so it could begin operating as a normal company.
Until that financing was in place, the company was operating under "different parameters", he says.
11:45 Prosecutor Godwin Cini cross-examines Frendo by asking what Chief Operating Officer Catherine Halpin had communicated to the directors, with Frendo replying that she had briefed them on searches conducted across 20 gigabytes of data, noting they could not rule out what might have been accessed. When Cini asked if there was widespread concern at Electrogas in 2017, Frendo said their focus was primarily on financing and working long hours rather than an atmosphere of general alarm.
As Cini attempted to ask whether Daphne Caruana Galizia had begun writing about 17 Black and Yorgen Fenech, defence lawyer Giannella de Marco immediately objected, arguing that the cross-examination needed to stay within the scope of the defence's examination, a restriction upheld by the judge, who instructed Cini to focus solely on data leaks.
Frendo then confirmed that a newly hired manager had indeed discovered leaks, explaining that during a company meeting, they concluded whoever was behind the breach had searched through inboxes and the entire system-spanning over 20 gigabytes of data, 144 mailboxes, and thousands of emails-meaning any data could have been taken.
Frendo noted that fragments of emails and contracts subsequently began surfacing in the media, leading Electrogas to file a formal police complaint on April 28, 2018, requesting an investigation. While Frendo was informed that an inquiry had been opened, he stated he had no knowledge of any subsequent developments.
11:35 The Electrogas representative lists keyword searches found in IT system after someone gained access
Someone had gained access to Electrogas's IT system and carried out keyword searches, he says.
The searches included "Keith Schembri", "Joseph Mizzi", "Orion", "17 Black", "Dubai" and other terms relating to prominent figures or companies.
De Marco asks whether Henley and Partners also featured in the searches.
"Yes," Frendo says, before rattling off more terms, including "Sai Mizzi" and "17 Black".
The IT officer flagged the searches to Frendo on June 26, 2017. Frendo told him to raise the matter with his direct manager, Catherine Halpin. He did so.
The following day, Halpin and Frendo met to discuss the matter. The day after that, the Electrogas directors were informed - Yorgen Fenech representing the local consortium, along with the Siemens and SOCAR representatives.
And with that, the defence rests its questioning.
11:31 With the court having already ruled that she cannot testify from documents, Rausi steps down from the witness stand.
After her, ElectroGas head of legal Chris Frendo takes the stand.
11:30 Following the legal debate, the jurors re-entered the courtroom and Bank of Valletta representative Dr Sarah Rausi resumed her place on the witness stand. Defence lawyer Giannella de Marco resumed her questioning by asking whether she represented the bank and prompting her about specific transactions.
However, the judge intervened to clarify the basis of the witness's testimony, asking Dr Rausi if she intended to testify using documents provided to her by the bank. When Dr Rausi confirmed she would be reading the information straight from the document, and reiterated that limitation when asked whether the transactions in 2017 were foreign or local, the court stepped in.
Saying no, the judge disallowed Dr Rausi from testifying about the transactions.
11:27 The prosecution says the matter was already settled by the court's ruling earlier today, accusing the defence of trying to get the court to effectively overturn its own decision.
Earlier, the prosecutor quipped that the defence was trying to get in through the back door with its arguments (ma jidħlux mit-tieqa, u jippruvaw jidħlu mill-ventilatur).
The court issues another ruling, broadly repeating its earlier decision.
Although the witness is on the defence witness list and may testify, the court says her evidence cannot be used to introduce new documents that were not already part of the case.
If her evidence is based on documents rather than on what she knows personally, the court will not allow her to testify.
11:18 Court says Fenech's passport and bank statement have been in the defence's hands since the start of proceedings, but were never exhibited
De Marco: "Can't they challenge her in cross-examination? Her oath carries weight. She can say she knows, or she doesn't know."
The judge is unmoved: "If she is going to testify on the basis of a document, I will not let her answer."
Charles Mercieca says he is aware that case law has developed in different directions and that not every document is necessarily admissible in evidence.
The judge points out that Fenech's passport and Visa card have been in the defence's hands since the start of the compilation - but were never exhibited.
"I'm not contradicting you," Mercieca says, "but there are judgments going one way and judgments going the other."
He argues that the evidence of a bank representative carries weight.
"No," the judge replies. "The document will not be exhibited. If she is testifying from a document, she will not be allowed to answer."
11:08 The court refuses to allow BOV witness Sarah Rausi to testify about the bank statement.
The document is not part of the case file and was never made available to either the Court or the opposing side.
"The BOV representative is not going to testify by heart, from what she remembers. She is testifying on the basis of a document which is not in the acts," the judge says.
This leads to some legal bickering from the defence's side.
"There are many judgments on this point, and I am following them - nothing less and nothing more," the judge adds drily.
11:01 The defence wants Rausi to confirm transactions made on Yorgen Fenech's Visa Gold card in April 2017, hoping to shore up his version of events.
Melvin Theuma had testified that Fenech asked to meet him at the Blue Elephant in Portomaso about three weeks before the 2017 election.
Fenech, however, said he was out of the country from April 7 to May 2 - first on a family cruise in the US, then in Dubai.
10:59 Lawyer Charles Mercieca responded to the prosecution's objections by pointing out that the defence's previously filed lists of witnesses and documents had explicitly stated that a Bank of Valletta representative would be called to testify and exhibit documents pertaining to specific bank transactions.
Prosecutor Anthony Vella countered that the defence had been given the opportunity to properly present those documents beforehand and had failed to do so.
Intervening in the debate, the judge pressed for clarity, asking where the documents in question currently stood within the formal acts of the case.
Mercieca defended the procedure, arguing that the defence had duly indicated the witness would exhibit these banking records. He maintained that this approach was entirely consistent with how previous testimony had been handled, noting that it was no different from earlier in the proceedings when John Abela had exhibited the original attendance sheet for the very first time directly from the witness stand.
10:54 Bank of Valletta representative Dr Sarah Rausi takes the witness stand, immediately triggering a legal argument after defence lawyer Giannella de Marco asked her to confirm a document relating to a BOV Visa card. Dr Rausi confirmed that the document pertained to Yorgen Fenech's Gold Card and identified transactions made with it in April 2017.
Prosecutor Godwin Cini immediately objected, arguing that the documents being introduced by the defence did not form part of the official acts of the case.
Following the objection, the judge declared a point of law. The jurors were instructed to withdraw from the courtroom, and Dr Rausi was also asked to step outside while the legal debate continued.
Prosecution lawyer Anthony Vella maintained that the witness should be restricted to testifying exclusively about documents already included in the case file, noting that the prosecution had adhered strictly to that same standard throughout their presentation of evidence.
10:46 Cini points out that the entry and exit times on the slip are written in a different hand and in different ink, but there is only one receptionist's signature.
Abela says there is more than one receptionist at Castille, and the departure may have been recorded by someone else.
"Who signs - the receptionist - are they signing for the time in or the time out?" Cini asks.
"The receptionist signs at the time in."
"So there's no one who signs for the time out?"
"No."
"So you didn't see anyone fill in this document?"
"No," Abela replies.
That brings Cini's cross-examination to an end.
De Marco has just one question in re-examination: Abela confirms that the document is an authentic Castille visitor slip book.
10:44 Prosecutor Godwin Cini starts his cross-examination.
Cini asks whether there is a protocol governing who enters through the main door.
"No, there is no protocol written down," Abela says.
10:38 A Castille visitor slip is now being exhibited, with all the nuts and bolts - the visitor's name, who they are there to see, their time of entry, and the signatures on the way in and out.
A court-marshal is now going around the courtroom, holding up the reception book with the relevant slip marked out with a yellow sticky note.
"Is there a reception at the main door?"
"No, there's only a soldier stationed there," Abela replies.
And with that, De Marco rests her examination.
10:37 Next up is the attendance book for Castille's reception, accessed through the St Paul Street entrance.
De Marco asks about Castille's two entrances - the main door onto Castille Square and the St Paul Street entrance.
"The Prime Minister, Cabinet and maybe an ambassador use the main entrance, but there's no protocol limiting it to just them," Abela says.
Ordinary visitors come in through St Paul Street, via reception, he says.
The court is now trying to track down the attendance book.
10:29 Abela had previously exhibited several documents and is now being asked to confirm them.
First up is the job description for Keith Schembri's role as chief of staff.
De Marco then moves on to Sandro Craus and his role as head of customer care within the government hierarchy.
10:25 We are back in hall 22
John Abela is the first witness to take the stand. He is a director of General Support Services at the OPM.
09:45 "We will be brief," defence lawyer Giannella De Marco says, looking at the defence witness list.
Around five witnesses are expected to take the stand, including an OPM representative, an HSBC representative, and an Electrogas representative.
And with that, we're on a break until 10:15am.
9:49 Mercieca delivered his final appeal to the jurors by quoting Keith Schembri's characterization of Melvin Theuma as the biggest liar in Malta, arguing that Schembri made that statement because he knows the true state of affairs, which also explains why he rushed to the prime minister regarding the presidential pardon.
True justice, Mercieca emphasized, requires convicting the actual perpetrator rather than an innocent person. He warned the panel that convicting Yorgen Fenech would constitute a miscarriage of justice for Fenech himself, for society at large, and for Daphne Caruana Galizia.
Mercieca made his ultimate plea to the jury.
"I ask you to return a verdict of not guilty," he told them, concluding his address.
9:41 Mercieca questioned the motives behind granting Melvin Theuma a presidential pardon and a fictitious government position, asking the jurors how all this apparent protection aligns with a genuine search for the truth. He pointed to suspicious circumstances, including why Theuma lied about a meeting at the Blue Elephant restaurant, why he spent months preparing for his arrest, and why he made multiple visits to the Auberge de Castille.
Directing the jury's attention toward Keith Schembri, Chris Cardona, the Degiorgio brothers, and the details surrounding election timelines, Mercieca asked them to consider who communicated with Schembri at Castille and who claimed Schembri was considered number one by those at the potato shed. He also highlighted the timing of the assassination before urging the jurors not to throw a lifeline to Melvin Theuma and Keith Schembri.
9:37 Mercieca shifted his focus to the conduct of high-ranking police officers throughout the murder inquiry. He noted that Deputy Commissioner Silvio Valletta recused himself from the investigation due to his friendship with Yorgen Fenech, yet pointed out that Valletta was never brought to the witness stand to answer the prosecution's allegations against him.
In contrast, Mercieca stated that documented evidence clearly shows former Commissioner Lawrence Cutajar and Assistant Commissioner Mario Tonna provided assistance to Melvin Theuma. Mercieca said that it is now beyond doubt that the former commissioner was corrupt and that Theuma is a liar.
9:30 Mercieca advised the jurors that they must carefully weigh a witness's personal interests when determining the credibility of their testimony. He noted that while the law does not dictate that a witness's testimony must be automatically dismissed simply because they have an agenda, the fact-finder must be thoroughly convinced of its truth before relying on it.
Mercieca said that Theuma had testified from a prearranged script, drawing attention to recorded conversations between the police commissioner and Edgar Brincat, known as il-Ġojja, who was a close friend of Theuma for some 30 years and whom Theuma had described as a second father.
Mercieca highlighted a discussion where il-Ġojja allegedly admitted to writing down what Theuma should say during police interrogation, pointing out that the commissioner had responded by saying he had listened to the recordings and that Theuma sounded perfect. Mercieca questioned how anyone could be convinced by Theuma's testimony given these revelations about coaching and coordinated narratives.
09:26 Charles Mercieca continued casting doubt on the reliability and completeness of the audio recordings gathered from Melvin Theuma. He questioned which sections might be missing, why certain parts were omitted, and pointed out that investigators failed to examine the content that was left out.
Mercieca emphasised that the police never even bothered to check whether the individual supposedly behind the assassination was actually out of the country when Theuma claimed the murder plot was set into motion. Returning to his previous point regarding the influence Theuma believed he possessed, Mercieca argued that Theuma felt backed by power, which explains why he proceeded to pay for the crime despite his comfortable financial situation.
09:21 Prosecutor Anthony Vella had told jurors they would never have the full picture, but would have enough pieces to form a good idea of what the hypothetical photograph showed, Mercieca said.
Mercieca warns that selectively interpreting evidence is dangerous. He says that Theuma selectively chose when to record.
He also goes into the caution historically attached to the testimony given by an accomplice.
09:14 Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca starts off by reading the definition of complicity from the Criminal Code.
He gears up to point out why Yorgen Fenech's role does not tally up with it.
09:09 The public gallery is packed as Charles Mercieca gets things underway with a "bongu", including a "Bongu, Yorgen" to the accused.
"Today I will conclude my submissions," he says.
It is the third day of the defence's submissions, laying out its case after weeks of testimony and evidence.