When they first arrived here five years ago, two of them were still children. Together with an older colleague, they were treated like criminals – worse, pirates – and locked in prison for seven long months before being granted bail, with a 30-year prison sentence hanging over them.
Amara, 15, Kader, 16, and Abdalla, 19, the El Hiblu 3, were charged with commandeering a ship and threatening the crew. They insist they were merely acting as mediators and translators for a group of over 100 migrants rescued at sea but who feared were being taken back to Libya.
Appeals for their release started soon after their arraignment in late March 2019.
More than 1,000 organisations and personalities wrote to Attorney General Victoria Buttigieg last September demanding she drop all charges and immediately release all three.
She did not even have the courtesy to reply. This is the same person who had no problem dropping charges against a person originally accused of trying to kill police officers during a botched bank heist.
It is the same attorney general who had no qualms ordering the police not to prosecute former Pilatus Bank officials indicated by an inquiring magistrate.
If she argues that, in the El Hiblu 3 case, there is evidence she cannot ignore, then the attorney general must explain why she appeared to be completely overlooking testimony that existed in both the bank heist and the Pilatus cases.
Indeed, the evidence produced in the El Hiblu case could give rise to serious doubts in view of the latest revelations. It has emerged that the vessel was involved in a major cocaine operation less than two years after the migrants’ rescue, its owner describing himself on Facebook as a “Libyan pirate”.
This latest development pushed activists to protest in Valletta last week, insisting the charges against the El Hiblu 3 be dropped.
Describing the ongoing proceedings as a “farce”, President Emeritus Marie-Louise Coleiro, who has always been at the forefront of the battle to free the three men, publicly called on the attorney general to “do the right thing”.
“It is not in the country’s interests to proceed in a travesty of justice that is being watched keenly worldwide… We do not need any more stains on our reputation,” she charged.
A clear indictment of the institutions involved in this case and which have failed miserably in their legal and constitutional obligations.
Apart from the apparent unfair manner in which the case has been handled all along, the duration of the proceedings also brings into question the role of the court.
A person has the right to a “fair and public hearing within reasonable time” and the first duty to ensure that happens lies with the judiciary.
Judges and magistrates must be aware that the total duration of up to two years per level of jurisdiction in ordinary (non-complex) cases has generally been regarded as reasonable by the European Court of Human Rights. Yes, indeed, there have been exceptions. However, the Strasbourg-based court would probably find a violation even if the case lasted less than two years if, for example, the delay could have irreparable consequences for the accused.
There can be no doubt that the life of the El Hiblu 3 has been shattered and that they face a bleak future.
The justice system in Malta should throw their case out of the window even if only on such grounds.