The lawyer assisting Daphne Caruana Galizia’s heirs in a libel suit filed by Joseph and Michelle Muscat reiterated on Monday it was impossible for the slain journalist's relatives to defend themselves since “the evidence had died” with the journalist when she was blown up. 

That was also the reason why last week the Caruana Galizias filed constitutional proceedings claiming that continuing with the libel would breach their fundamental rights, he argued. The family is requesting a declaration to the effect that the libel suit was extinguished through Daphne Caruana Galizia’s death. 

The Muscats had filed libel proceedings against Daphne Caruana Galizia and her son Matthew over a 2017 article, first published in her Running Commentary blog alleging that the secret offshore company Egrant belonged to Michelle.

That story had prompted the former prime minister to request a magisterial inquiry to investigate those claims. The inquiry, led by then-Magistrate Aaron Bugeja, concluded that there was no documentation linking the Muscat family to the Panama company, with a UK-based forensic accounting firm also failing to find any evidence linking the Muscats to Egrant Inc on the servers of now-shuttered Pilatus Bank.

Then last week, Peter Caruana Galizia and his sons, Matthew, Andrew and Paul instituted proceedings before the constitutional courts, insisting that since they have no access to her closely-guarded sources, they cannot defend her story alleging that Egrant belonged to Michelle.

When the libel case was called on Monday, their lawyer Joseph Zammit Maempel informed presiding Magistrate Victor George Axiak about the constitutional case. 

The case was assigned to Mr Justice Toni Abela who had abstained, sending the case back to the Registrar for it to be reassigned to another judge. 

“We are claiming that this is an unfair trial. We’re saying that we are in no position to defend ourselves. She [Daphne Caruana Galizia] was blown up," explained Zammit Maempel.

The journalist’s assassination had made it impossible for her heirs to put up a valid defence against the libel claims of the former prime minister and his wife.

“Someone blew her up. The evidence died with her. She was the one investigating, not her heirs,” stressed the lawyer. 

In April - six years since Caruana Galizia first published the article, her son Matthew told court it would take a miracle to defend his mother’s publication.

The Muscats’ lawyer, Pawlu Lia, said that “for the time being” he would accept the respondents’ request for a deferment. This was not because he was in agreement with their claims but to take stock of the situation. 

Moreover, the request in the constitutional case was made in respect of the libel suit against Daphne Caruana Galizia. There was no reason why three other parallel suits - including one against her son Matthew - were not to continue, argued Lia.

By way of example he spoke of a “non-political case” he had stepped into. 

The case had been ongoing for 40 years and was still at the stage where the applicant was producing evidence. When Lia stepped in to assist the applicant, he flagged the fact that most of the witnesses were no longer alive and certain documents were no longer relevant. 

The applicant’s own ‘carelessness’ may have prejudiced his own position. The first court upheld that argument which was, however, overturned on appeal. 

“Fundamental human rights are not only of those who accepted her inheritance but also of the person who wants to protect his reputation and is seeking justice,” said Lia. 

Zammit Maempel countered that since they were requesting that the libel be declared extinguished, they were requesting the libel to be suspended until the constitutional case is definitively decided. 

In light of this development, the court deferred the case to next month.