Warrants for wiretapping in criminal investigations should no longer be authorised by the home affairs minister but should instead become the responsibility of the judiciary, according to a European prosecutor.

Yvonne Farrugia, Malta’s European public prosecutor believes “this would ensure that any decisions regarding the interception of communications of criminals are made without any political influence.”

Currently, in Malta, prosecutors and investigators who wish to monitor their criminal targets must file requests under the Security Services Act. This law, which deals with matters of national interest, stipulates that requests for warrants are made to the home affairs minister.

In an interview with Times of Malta, Farrugia emphasised that this should no longer be the case in criminal investigations. “Magistrates grant arrest and search warrants, and a similar system should be adopted for cases where investigators seek to conduct surveillance on subjects of their investigations.”

Prosecutors use wiretapping to gather evidence that can be used in court for many serious criminal offences. Farrugia argues that “members of the judiciary are capable of assessing the proportionality of the requests made by the investigators and can decide whether the request for a warrant is relevant and should be issued.”

Since intercepts may also include personal data and information, Farrugia suggests that evolving the regulation of telecommunications intercepts may also aid the admissibility of evidence in open court.

“We are dealing with measures that impinge on a person’s private life. In cases of criminal offences, especially organised crime, corruption, and very serious cases, this tool is crucial because, in the end, you need evidence to support your case in court.”

Farrugia was appointed Malta’s European Public Prosecutor on July 29, 2020. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) tackles large-scale cross-border crime against the EU budget. Operations commenced in June 2021 in 22 participating EU member states, including Malta. Since then, Poland and Sweden have also joined.

By December 2023, the EPPO had 12 active investigations in Malta, which is less than one per cent of the 1,372 open investigations across the 24 member countries. Earlier this month, as a result of an investigation in Malta by the European Prosecutor’s Office 11 suspects, including nine public officers, were charged in court with customs fraud, corruption, participation in a criminal organisation, and money laundering.

“This was a very serious case as the stakes are higher when public officials are involved,” Farrugia said.

EPPO estimates that these alleged criminal activities in this particular case caused damage of over €15.9 million to Malta’s national budget and over €7.6 million to the EU budget.

Farrugia defends the limited progress in other investigations, insisting these are complex and require resources that the EPPO does not have at its disposal. EPPO relies on the collaboration of the Malta Police Force and the Attorney General’s Office.

“At the moment, we liaise directly with one police inspector who has pending national investigations. We would prefer to have a dedicated team of inspectors working exclusively on EPPO investigations, as this would enable us to conclude many more investigations.”

Regarding the AG’s Office, Farrugia notes that cooperation has increased since EPPO’s Chief Prosecutor Laura Codruţa Kövesi criticised the Maltese authorities for not providing enough resources.

“Our office remains autonomous, and the AG cannot make decisions that impinge on operational matters related to our investigations, but dialogue has increased,” she said.

Way back in 2011, then Nationalist backbencher Franco Debono had presented a private members’ motion about Justice and Home Affairs.(https://timesofmalta.com/article/birth-holistic-justice-reform-a2.1066779)Debono had asked the Ministry for Justice ‘to examine whether time had come for warrants for Security Service interceptions (those regarding ordinary crime and not national security) are removed from the political authority of the Minister and transferred to the investigative or judicial authority.’