Drug cases that are pending before the courts may hit a snag if the Constitutional Court upholds an argument made by lawyers that Malta’s forensic laboratory is not accredited to EU standards.
The lawyers, Franco Debono and Amadeus Cachia, are representing a man awaiting trial for cocaine trafficking.
They have requested that the matter be referred to the Constitutional Court for a decision.
Their client, Nigerian Morgan Izuchukwu Onuorah, is facing proceedings over his alleged involvement in a drug deal in 2010. He is pleading not guilty to conspiring to traffic drugs, supplying cocaine, being in possession of the drug and money laundering.
The case is presided over by Madam Justice Consuelo Scerri Herrera.
Through his lawyers, Onuorah pointed to a European Council Framework Decision and regulations passed by the European Parliament on the accreditation of forensic service providers carrying out laboratory activities. The legislation was transposed into Maltese law in March 2016.
Forensic service providers have to be accredited by a national body as being in conformity with the EN ISO/IEC 17025 standard.
Where are drug samples analysed?
According to a list provided by the National Accreditation Board, a government board responsible for the accreditation of laboratories, there is only one accredited laboratory for the testing of DNA and drugs samples as well as forensic and microbiology analysis, the accused pointed out.
This lab, BioDNA, operating from the Life Sciences Park in San Ġwann, is not one that the court uses for the testing of drug samples.
Samples of drugs seized by the authorities are analysed at the University of Malta’s Forensic Science Laboratory.
Onuorah said that at the time the drug in question was analysed, the laboratory was not accredited according to European standards and is still not accredited to this very day.
The accreditation process involves a lot of time and money given that there are various criteria that must be met. However, the process is necessary to create peace of mind, in both the judge and the accused, that the process of collecting, analysing and testing the drug is performed in a professional manner, and it can be certified.
The accused did not know whether the criteria deriving from European standards were followed in his case or if any kind of certification was issued showing that the lab where the drug was analysed was accredited.
The analysis in an uncredited laboratory meant there was no certainty about how the drug examination should be done, how the instruments are calibrated, and about the environment in which the analysis was carried out.
This led to “very serious doubts about the drug test and the report [of the court expert]”, Onuorah argued.
Government: directive does not apply to drug sampling
In reply to questions, a spokesperson for the Justice Ministry said it was not prudent to comment about a case pending before the courts.
However, the ministry spokesperson said that the directive being referred to in the pending case concerned laboratories that carry out DNA testing and fingerprinting, rather than those that carry out drug tests.