The Jury Vindicated the Doubts I Raised

For years, I was attacked—and even sued for libel—for questioning the procedures followed in the case against Yorgen Fenech. I was labelled a “mafia professor” merely because I challenged the official narrative and defended Fenech’s right to a fair trial.

I questioned the police investigation. I questioned how the prosecution and the courts conducted and handled the case. I also challenged statements made by members of the Caruana Galizia family when I believed that their claims were inaccurate or contradicted by the available evidence.

The jury has now acquitted Yorgen Fenech of both complicity in the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia and criminal association, by eight votes to one. Eight of the nine jurors were not convinced by the prosecution’s case.

This does not mean that the jurors necessarily accepted every argument I made, nor does an acquittal prove that every prosecution witness lied. It does, however, vindicate the serious doubts that I repeatedly raised about the investigation, the credibility of crucial testimony and the manner in which the case was prosecuted. In plain language, the prosecution failed to convince eight ordinary citizens that it had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.

I also repeatedly questioned whether the magisterial inquiry was conducted properly and whether the Office of the Attorney General handled the prosecution fairly and competently. These were legitimate questions of profound public importance. They should have been investigated and debated, not silenced through personal attacks and legal proceedings.

I publicly criticised the former Attorney General, Philip Galea Farrugia. He accused me during the inquiry of terrorising him and asked Magistrate Rachel Montebello to institute proceedings against me. Proceedings were indeed taken, but after a long legal journey, I was cleared of the accusations made against me.

This experience raises a disturbing question: have some of the very people who claim to defend the rule of law been using the judicial system to intimidate those who challenge their conduct? Rather than engaging with the substance of my criticism, sections of the mainstream media and several influential public figures supported attacks against me. Some even called for the University to terminate my employment.

There must also be proper public scrutiny of how individuals involved in this long and costly process subsequently advanced within the institutions of the State. Magistrates became judges, police officers became assistant commissioners, and prosecutors were appointed to the bench. Promotions do not, by themselves, prove wrongdoing. Nevertheless, when a prosecution of such enormous national importance ends in an eight-to-one acquittal, the public has every right to ask whether responsibility will be taken for the serious failures exposed during the trial.

The shenanigans must now stop. This jury has applied a necessary brake to a system that appeared to be moving in only one direction. The verdict demonstrates why trial by jury remains so important: citizens independent of the judicial and political establishment are asked to assess the evidence and determine whether the prosecution has proved its case.

I have also attacked the way the so-called public inquiry was conducted and its conclusions. Now, the conclusions are markedly different from those reached by the juries. I questioned aspects of the public inquiry throughout and was relentlessly attacked for doing so. Yet the jury’s verdict has confirmed that the official narrative presented to the public was never beyond legitimate challenge.

This blog has been continuously attacked because it insisted on asking questions that others preferred to suppress. The verdict does not answer every question surrounding Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. It does, however, demonstrate that questioning the police investigation, the prosecution and the administration of justice was neither irresponsible nor illegitimate.

The rule of law is not defended by silencing critics, intimidating dissenters or treating accusations as though they were already proven facts. It is defended through reliable evidence, impartial institutions, proper procedures and fair trials. On this occasion, eight ordinary citizens concluded that the prosecution had failed to meet that standard.