Malta’s highest court has thrown out claims by Ta’ Maksar brothers Robert and Adrian Agius and their associate Jamie Vella that their rights were breached when a presidential pardon was given to Vincent Muscat il-Koħħu in return for information.

Mr Justice Robert Mangion ruled that no court had the power to examine a pardon given by the President of Malta in line with the provisions in the constitution.

Presiding over the First Hall of the Civil Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, he ruled that issues of whether the president had followed the established procedure in the constitution in granting the pardon and matters relating to the provision of advice to the president may not be examined by any court, even where a breach of fundamental rights is alleged. 

Muscat had been pardoned for the 2015 murder of lawyer Carmel Chircop and then admitted to being one of the hitmen who murdered Caruana Galizia. He is serving a 15-year sentence for that crime.

On the back of evidence provided by Muscat, Robert Agius and Vella stand accused of having supplied the bomb used to murder Caruana Galizia in October 2017.

Adrian Agius stands accused of commissioning the murder of the lawyer who was gunned down in October 2015 inside a Birkirkara garage complex. Vella and Degiorgio are alleged to have carried out the hit, along with self-confessed hitman Vincent Muscat.

The Agius brothers and Vella argued that the pardon had been given on the basis of a recommendation by the cabinet of ministers who had every interest in protecting Muscat, the man who named them to the police. They claimed that some members of that cabinet had every interest in ensuring Muscat, rather than others, received a pardon as they wanted certain facts about the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia to remain undisclosed.

The three accused men argued that cabinet had interfered in a court matter when it recommended that Muscat be given a pardon. They also argued that they had not been consulted before the pardon was issued, in breach of their right to a fair hearing.

They referred to the testimony of lead investigator superintendent Keith Arnaud who had said that police had not arraigned the Maksars and Vella earlier because they did not possess sufficient evidence to prosecute.

However, this changed overnight once the Attorney General struck a plea bargain with Muscat who, shielded by the pardon green-lighted by Cabinet, named the Agius brothers and Vella as players in both murders, based on information he had obtained from third parties.

They also complained that they will be disadvantaged by the evidence of Muscat il-Koħħu in the criminal case against them. They argued that the charges brought against them relied solely on what was said by one person and contend that this, in itself, violates their right to a fair hearing.

However, Mr Justice Mangion noted that any person who testified in court may be cross-examined by the accused and that any person may be brought during the trial to answer questions posed by both the prosecution and the defence. He observed that the criminal proceedings were still pending and that the three men had all the safeguards at their disposal that allow and guarantee an appropriate hearing.

The judge said that, at this stage, it was far too premature to say whether there was already or there was likely to be an infringement of fundamental rights. He therefore threw out the complaint.

Lawyers Alfred Abela and Rene’ Darmanin were defence counsel.