In their application, they argued that some members of Cabinet, including those who might be under investigation, ensured that Muscat, and not others, received a pardon, to ensure that certain facts about the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia remained hidden. 

They noted that lead investigator Keith Arnaud had told the court that the police had not moved against Agius and Vella before because they felt that they did not have enough evidence to prosecute. This, they said, meant that the pardon given to Muscat was critical to their arraignment. 

Cabinet granting its approval for a presidential pardon to be granted effectively meant that the executive could interfere with the workings of the court. 

They also pointed to the findings of the public inquiry into the Caruana Galizia assassination, which found cabinet to be indirectly responsible for the murder. 

Another point raised by the lawyers related to the Attorney General’s role in negotiating Muscat’s plea deal, raising concerns about her independence. 

Adrian Agius alone has also claimed a rights breach in the prosecution’s decision to prosecute his case together with that of his brother Robert and Vella. Agius is not charged in relation to the Caruana Galizia murder though, because the compilation of evidence in the two cases has been dealt with in the same proceedings. 

This, he argued, meant that he was being deprived of his right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, given that he was being forced to sit through hours of testimony about a case he was not being charged with involvement in.  

Share this with someone that needs to read it