Defence counsel insist proceedings are null

The defence counsel to a Maltese man and a Chinese woman undergoing extradition proceedings yesterday claimed that the proceedings were null and void on procedural grounds.

Lawyers Edward Zammit Lewis, José Herrera and Franco Debono argued that the extradition proceedings against Carmelo Borg and Wei Wang were null and void as the court had failed to observe the procedural requisites laid down by law.

Mr Borg and Ms Wei are wanted by the Italian authorities in connection with the Maundy Thursday drowning of six Chinese and Mongolian illegal immigrants about 15 miles off Sicily when they were allegedly forced off a boat thought to have left from Malta.

Dr Zammit Lewis, who was making final legal submissions, claimed that the law established phases in the proceedings. First, the law demanded, the court must decide whether the person brought before it is the person in respect of whom the proceedings have been instituted.

Once that was decided, the court must decide whether the offence specified in the warrant is an extraditable one. If the court decides in the affirmative it must move on to decide whether or not there were legal bars to the extradition.

The lawyers argued that Magistrate Joseph Apap Bologna has given a written decree as to the identity of Mr Borg and Ms Wei but had not given a written decree as to whether the offence was extraditable. This meant that the proceedings were null as such a requisite could not be rectified at this stage.

Seniour Counsel to the Republic Donatella Frendo Dimech replied that the fact that the court actually went on with the proceedings satisfied the legal request as this obviously meant that the magistrate had "decided" that the offence was extraditable.

The defence's claim, she added, was an attempt to stall the proceedings and to impugn on the court any wrongdoing. Had the defence been in good faith it would have raised this point earlier on in the proceedings.

Dr Herrera replied that this was an unfair comment as it was up to the defence to raise legal points at a time that best suited their client.

He added that, in light of the nature of the case, the court had not allowed them to produce evidence in their clients' defence and, for this reason, they had to resort to procedural tactics.

Magistrate Apap Bologna put off the case to October 4 for a final judgment.

Two days later, on October 6, Mr Justice Gino Camilleri is expected to give a decision in a civil case after the lawyers filed a writ in the First Hall contesting the validity of the law in terms of which a European arrest warrant had been issued.

Should the Civil Court decide that the law was not valid, the final decision in the extradition proceedings may be declared null.