The Armed Forces of Malta has launched disciplinary action against soldiers who failed to prevent a massive drugs heist in Safi barracks last month.

Instead of monitoring the facility, the soldiers were either asleep or watching a film during the three-hour robbery, allowing thieves to steal over 100kg in cannabis resin unnoticed.

Following an administrative inquiry led by retired Judge Geoffrey Valencia, the AFM confirmed those responsible will face disciplinary charges under the Armed Forces of Malta Act.

The bureaucratic process will likely end with the soldiers being either suspended, demoted or dismissed from the army, according to army sources.

However, the law allows for an even greater penalty for soldiers who are found guilty of losing property that has been entrusted in their care: prison.

It is still too early to determine the consequences of this case as the disciplinary process is yet to begin, and the army provided a vague official reply to Times of Malta questions.

“The Armed Forces of Malta’s internal inquiry has concluded, and disciplinary action will be taken against the officers/soldiers identified by the board for shortcomings in their duties,” an AFM spokesperson said.

“In accordance with the Armed Forces of Malta Act, the AFM will issue charges to those concerned accordingly.”

What did the officers do wrong?

Four army officers, including a major, who were on duty that night refused to testify in court this week.

They were called to the stand as part of the compilation of evidence against six people charged in connection with the February 24 robbery, which saw criminals cut a fence at the Safi barracks and then shuttle over 100kg of cannabis resin blocks from a container into getaway vehicles before escaping.

The Valenzia inquiry found that a soldier responsible for monitoring 35 CCTV cameras on site that night was instead watching a film on a tablet with earphones.

He also spent time on the phone with his girlfriend, cooked and ate food in a kitchenette and failed to conduct patrols or check the container, and his colleague was fast asleep.

The judge found that the soldiers were so distracted that “for almost three hours the thieves operated undisturbed, making repeated trips [to and from the container], and even transported drugs to a garage in Żebbuġ before returning to Safi to continue the heist, as if they knew nobody was watching”.

The theft was only discovered later that night during a routine patrol of the facility.

What happens now?

The Armed Forces Act establishes a clear process for dealing with military offences and ensuring accountability within the ranks.

When a soldier is suspected of dereliction of duty, an investigation is launched. This can range from a simple inquiry by a commanding officer at a regimental level to a more thorough investigation depending on the severity of the alleged offence.

In this case, the shortcomings established by the administrative inquiry and the AFM board are considered to be severe and the soldiers and some of their superiors will receive charges in the coming days.

The AFM uses a tiered system for handling disciplinary matters. Less serious offences are typically addressed by commanding officers through punishments like reprimands, extra duties, or small fines.

But given the nature of this case and the ranks of the officials involved, it possibly warrants the appointment of an Appropriate Superior Authority, meaning it is expected to carry harsher consequences.

The law says that in more serious offences or in cases where the military offence is also criminal, the matter could be referred either to the police or court-martial.

A court-martial is a more formal, lengthy and complex trial which includes a panel of military officers and functions under the remit of the Attorney General. Whichever procedure is used, the accused has the right to present evidence in his or her defence.

If found guilty, the court-martial can impose a range of punishments, which vary depending on the rank of the individual and the severity of the offence.

It appears that the last court martial in the army was held in the 1980s, with the other, more expedient tiers of military justice having been used since then.

Once the procedure concludes, the AFM Commander, that is the Brigadier, has sole discretion to discharge an individual in the interest of the service.

But the law goes even further, allowing for a prison sentence of up to two years.

It says: “Any person subject to military law who loses or by negligence damages any public or service property of which he has the charge or which has been entrusted to his care or which forms part of the property of which he has the charge or which has been entrusted to his care shall, on conviction by court-martial, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment provided by this Act.”

While the AFM has its own internal justice system, soldiers have the right to appeal to civilian courts. This ensures that soldiers have access to a fair and impartial review of their cases, safeguarding their rights.