The defence will this morning continue its submissions to the jurors in the trial of Yorgen Fenech.

Once this is over, Judge Edwina Grima will be giving her own address before jurors deliberate and give their verdict.

Bringing two days of intense submissions to an end Friday, prosecutor Anthony Vella maintained that the evidence firmly proved Fenech commissioned and financed the October 2017 car bomb attack.

In a striking final appeal to the jury, Vella declared that Fenech has "his hands stained with Daphne Caruana Galizia's blood."

Following the prosecution's closing remarks, the defence began its final response-marking the last opportunity for Fenech's legal team to address the jury directly before the court retires for deliberations.

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

09:53 Shifting focus back to state witness Melvin Theuma, Mercieca asks jurors why the middleman repeatedly misled investigators about his visits to the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) at Castille.

"Did they tell you how many times Theuma lied about going to Castille?" Mercieca asks. "Let's say he's mixing up the dates, it's been seven years after, how are you lying about the amount of times you went to Castille?"

Mercieca highlights a key meeting between Theuma and former OPM Chief of Staff Keith Schembri:

"When he met with Keith Schembri, he spent two and a half hours there... What happened in those two and a half hours?"

09:51 Mercieca turns to the physical evidence collected by US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents called in to assist local police following the October 2017 car bombing.

"Did the prosecution tell you why the FBI experts came to Malta?" Mercieca asks jurors. "And thank God they came."

He challenges the prosecution bench to address a core timeline contradiction: "Did they tell you why the bomb came to Malta before the murder was allegedly commissioned?"

Mercieca argues that forensic evidence places the explosive device inside Malta prior to the period when middleman Melvin Theuma claims he was instructed by Fenech to procure a hit.

Turning towards the prosecution, Mercieca tells the jury: "If he could answer, he would. But if he could, he would not answer-because it contradicts their entire story."

09:46 The aggressive line of argument draws a visible reaction from the prosecution bench, where prosecutors chuckled in response to the defence's assertions.

Mercieca immediately turns to address the prosecution's reaction: "I understand that my words hurt to hear. When you hit a person where it hurts, the person will act."

Mercieca then turns to the court and asks: "Do they need a break?"

Presiding Judge Edwina Grima immediately steps in: "I don't want comments, continue Dr.  Mercieca".

"Why did he need a pardon?" Mercieca asks the jury. "You were scared the recordings would disappear? You had the recordings in hand for nine months, so why did he need a pardon?"

The defence lawyer charges that state authorities had assisted Theuma at every turn, granting him blanket immunity not only for his role in the assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, but also for widespread financial crimes.

"Why did you favour him in everything? Why was he given a pardon on money laundering and other crimes? This is not a pardon-this is a favour."

He further points to past high-profile armed robberies and major heists-including the HSBC bank robbery and the Casino di Venezia raid, blanketed by Theuma's pardon.

"A pardon is not given because you did not do anything," Mercieca tells the courtroom.

"I have Keith Schembri on one side and Melvin Theuma in the police commissioner's pocket. Of course I would leave," the defence argues.

9:40 Mercieca questioned why authorities waited until November to arrest middleman Melvin Theuma when Europol had pushed for his arrest nine months earlier in January, asking the jury if it truly took investigators that long to uncover Theuma's money laundering empire. Pushing further on the integrity of the state's case, Mercieca asked why a pardon was ever necessary or promised if the prosecution already possessed Theuma's secret audio recordings and claimed to be completely certain of the evidence, highlighting the fact that Theuma was handed a completely clean slate that pardoned him not only for the murder plot, but also for separate crimes. 

9:35 The defence also questions why there had been no confrontation between the prosecution's "star witness", Melvin Theuma, and Yorgen Fenech.

"Did they tell you why they didn't arrange a confrontation between their star witness and Yorgen Fenech?" it asked.

The defence raises questions over why Theuma had a photograph of Keith Schembri in his ice-cream box.

The defence refers to the period between the 14 and 19 November, while Schembri disappeared from the picture on the 19.

"If a picture of Schembri was left in the box, I would logically expect there to be a story behind that picture," the defence argues.

9:32 Mercieca acknowledged that Yorgen Fenech had personal struggles, including a drug problem, but stressed that none of those failings make him a murderer because he is not on trial for drugs or political relationships.

Responding to the prosecution's critique that the defence failed to request a direct confrontation between Fenech and middleman Melvin Theuma, Mercieca countered that Fenech actually sought a confrontation back in 2019 and argued that seven years later, everything that needed to be said has already been said.

Mercieca then turned the focus to Theuma's political connections, noting that upon his arrest, Theuma immediately sought representation from prominent Nationalist Party politicians like David Casa, Simon Busuttil, and Beppe Fenech Adami - none of whom are criminal defence lawyers. Highlighting that these figures were political foes of the governing administration rather than Fenech, Mercieca told the jury this offered a telling window into Theuma's true state of mind when he was first arrested in 2019.

9:26 Mercieca reminded jurors that the legal burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution, emphasising that the state possesses all the investigative tools necessary to build a case while the defence has no obligation to bring evidence. Challenging the prosecution's timeline of when the murder was commissioned, Mercieca pointed to passport stamps showing Yorgen Fenech was out of the country in the US on April 6, 2017, and in Dubai in early May, arguing there is no proof Fenech was in Malta during that window, whereas evidence clearly places middleman Melvin Theuma meeting with former OPM Chief of Staff Keith Schembri at Castille instead. 

9:20 Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca resumed his address to the jurors, immediately circling back to the contentious issue of middleman Melvin Theuma's presidential pardon that sparked Friday's legal spat with the prosecution.

Reiterating his point to the jury, Mercieca challenged the timeline of the investigation by asking why authorities promised Theuma a pardon before they had even arrested Yorgen Fenech.

The lawyer continues to state that basic logic dictates that authorities should first hear what a suspect has to say, listen to both sides, and only then make a decision.

Mercieca likens this to a standard workplace dispute where management must hear out both colleagues before acting.

9:13 Judge Edwina Grima opened today's court session by issuing a decree to resolve a legal dispute that consumed the final 30 minutes of Friday's hearing regarding the circumstances of middleman Melvin Theuma's presidential pardon.

While prosecutors argued against the defence's attempt to tell jurors that Theuma had been promised a pardon prior to Yorgen Fenech's arrest, the judge ruled that the defence is permitted to reference the fact that Theuma was offered a pardon, provided they clarify it was granted "subject to certain conditions" rather than handed out unconditionally.