Editorial: Why we cannot look away from this trial

At the start of Yorgen Fenech’s trial on July 1, prosecutor Anthony Vella urged jurors to set aside any preconceived notions about Daphne Caruana Galizia, whether favourable or unfavourable, and decide the case only on the evidence presented in court.

“Daphne was a journalist who wrote constantly. You may agree or disagree with what she wrote, but keep in mind that she was killed because of her work,” he said.

Vella’s statement was a reminder of the responsibility that rests not only on the jury but on the country as a whole.

This trial has been long in coming, delayed at almost every twist and turn, whether by strategy or procedure. But now that it has started, there is no doubt it is the most consequential trial in history – and this is why it deserves to be followed closely, reported accurately and debated responsibly.

Which is why we need to remember one fact: There is only one man in the dock.

Yorgen Fenech has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to complicity in the assassination of Caruana Galizia. It is his fate the jury must determine, on the evidence and the law. No one else’s.

Prosecutors are presenting evidence they believe prove the charges. Defence lawyers have a duty to test the prosecution’s case rigorously.

And almost three weeks in, it is easy to become distracted by the allegations and side stories that have already emerged, not to mention the litany of high-profile names and their sidekicks somewhat associated with this ghastly case.

Some of these individuals already face separate criminal proceedings. Others have been investigated previously. Some claims have yielded insufficient evidence to proceed, while others rightly continue to fuel debate over whether the investigations went far enough.

Others remain the subject of ongoing investigations or pending cases: Keith Schembri, for instance, is among those facing charges for having leaked confidential information about the murder investigation.

The justice system depends on each case being decided on its own facts rather than by association or political narrative.

This trial has been long in coming, delayed at almost every twist and turn, whether by strategy or procedure

That is precisely why Judge Edwina Grima has earned widespread respect for the firm, measured way in which she has conducted proceedings so far. In a courtroom carrying unprecedented public attention and intense emotions, she has consistently brought the focus back to the task at hand.

The prosecution is making the case the assassination was motivated by a desire to stop the publication of information concerning powerful interests.

So, it is inevitable that broader questions about a culture of impunity, corruption and political protection have come back into the fore.

But the case has also once again exposed the widespread poverty of public discourse.

The endless repetition of inanities such as “fejn hu l-laptop?” (‘where is Daphne’s laptop’) and others still callously saying that Daphne “was asking for it” does little to illuminate the issues before the court.

Of course, it is legitimate to ask about investigations, including, for example, why Schembri’s missing phone was not cloned, or whether the former police commissioner was questioned enough. 

But reducing this crucial murder trial to partisan talking points misses the point entirely.

The people who murdered Caruana Galizia were criminals. They believed they could silence a journalist through terror and believed they could get away with it.

And that is why this trial matters.

Not because it will answer every question. It will not. It matters because rule of law demands the suspects are tested openly and fairly. The jury’s task is to decide whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

The country’s task is simpler: to listen and, above all, not lose sight what this trial is actually about.