There are times when justice is turned on its head, when victims are turned into perpetrators and when persons are held hostage by systemic violence even if under the guise of procedure.
Four years ago, in March 2019, a merchant vessel called El Hiblu 1 received orders to rescue a group of people from a sinking rubber boat.
The survivors were told that they would be taken to Europe. Instead, the ship was instructed to head south towards Libya.
Multiple reports by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights have shown that widespread human rights violations and abuses (including arbitrary killings, extorsion, torture, ill-treatment and rape) were, and still are, the order of the day in Libyan detention centres. Libya was not, and is not, a place of safety.
International law prohibits pushbacks to countries deemed unsafe. The survivors protested being sent back to Libya. Such was the desperation that some threatened to throw themselves overboard. None of them, bar a couple, spoke English.
Three young men – aged 15, 16 and 19 at the time – translated and mediated between the crew and the survivors.
The ship eventually entered Malta, the closest safe port. The captain, presumably in a bid to not have the vessel impounded, defended his action by claiming that the ship had been hijacked. Armed officers stormed the El Hiblu 1 and arrested the three youngsters, two of whom were minors.
When preliminary charges were pressed against them, Abdalla, Amara and Kader were accused of an act of terrorism, of seizing the ship and other crimes. Those charges carry a maximum life sentence. Sworn testimonies suggest very clearly that no one had been injured, nothing had been damaged and the ship’s crew was in control.
Four years later, the ‘El Hiblu 3’ (the three young men) are still being kept hostage by protracted legal proceedings at the compilation of evidence stage. It took almost two years, and many complaints by the defence team, for the prosecution to summon any of the 100 eyewitnesses who were on the El Hiblu 1.
Only a few of them could be traced after so much time had been allowed to elapse. The reluctance to produce these witnesses resulted in important evidence being lost. The prosecution evidently fell short of its duty to collect and produce all evidence in favour and against the accused.
For months now, the ‘El Hiblu 3’ have had to attend court every month only for the sitting to be deferred in the absence of any notification by the office of the attorney general on whether it intends to issue a bill of indictment for the accused to face trial or else to discontinue criminal proceedings (nolle prosequi). As a result, the lives of these three young people remain suspended.
Prosecuting the ‘El Hiblu 3’, let alone imprisoning them, is a deep injustice- Jean-Paul De Lucca
Last September, over 1,000 individuals and organisations signed an open letter addressed and delivered to the attorney general, urging her to drop the charges against the ‘El Hiblu 3’. Among other things, the signatories pointed out that helping to prevent a pushback to an unsafe country is on no account a crime, rather the opposite.
Human rights organisations have flagged this case as an attempt to criminalise victims. Prosecuting the three, let alone imprisoning them, is a deep injustice.
It is plainly obvious to anyone following the case and proceedings in open court that the charges are unjust. Amara, Abdalla and Kader are not criminals, let alone terrorists.
The ‘El Hiblu 3’ are being accused of the crimes of taking a ship hostage and of violence. Yet, they are the ones being criminalised for averting a crime, by translating and mediating in a potentially dangerous and life-threatening situation.
They are the ones being held hostage by long-drawn-out legal proceedings, causing them hardship and paralysing their lives unfairly.
They are the ones who are facing procedural violence, along with the violence of exaggerated charges.
We must not forget that, while the law purports to bring justice, it operates within a system that organises violence. At times, the law and its procedures are the cause of violence. It is especially in such instances that standing for justice becomes imperative, lest those using the law lose sight of its proper purpose.
This is even more so when the law is used for political ends, such as dissuading third parties from, say, averting crimes which states are quite happy tolerating, if not also encouraging. Criminalising and terrorising innocent victims who happen to be doing the right thing at the right time becomes a means towards such nefarious ends.
Morally convinced of the youngsters’ innocence, many are standing in solidarity with the ‘El Hiblu 3’. They are the only real victims in the case.
Pursuing the charges against them would not serve the interest of justice. On the contrary, doing so would be profoundly unjust.
Prof. Jean-Paul De Lucca lectures in political and legal philosophy.