A court has rebuffed prosecutors’ attempt to add criminal charges to their case against Paceville impresario and Instagram personality Lilu King, seven months after they first arraigned him.

Lilu King, whose real name is Mohamed Ali Ahmed Elmushraty, stands accused of involvement in organized crime, mainly linked to money laundering and drug trafficking. He is pleading not guilty.

Since his arraignment in May, Elmushraty has remained under preventive custody. The case against him has stuttered, however, with prosecutors acknowledging that no drugs were found in his possession when he was arrested along with two other suspects in a drug raid at a St Julian’s residence.

Defence lawyers have pressed that fact home and repeatedly noted that prosecutors were accusing their client of money laundering with links to drug trafficking, but pressed no drug-related charges against him.

That looked set to change when the case resumed for the latest session in its compilation of evidence, when prosecutors asked the court to add the charges of involvement in drug trafficking and a drug trafficking conspiracy in terms of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance to Elmushraty’s charge sheet.

That request, raised verbally before the Magistrates’ Court presiding over the compilation of evidence, immediately triggered strong objections by the defence on various grounds.

Defence lawyers Franco Debono and Jose’ Herrera argued that the charges were completely different to the ones their client was pleading not guilty to and came with the risk of life imprisonment.

How could the prosecution add such drug charges midway through the proceedings, seven months down the line, argued the lawyers.

Citing the Criminal Code, they added that in such a scenario proceedings would have to start afresh, putting the accused back to day one of his case.

The prosecution rebutted that argument, insisting that such charges were not different but related to the money laundering accusation filed against Elmushraty from the very start.

However the defence insisted, pointing out further that the original charges stemmed from Chapter 373, namely the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, whereas the additional charges which the prosecution wanted to add on, related to offences under Chapter 101, namely the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

Those were two totally different pieces of legislation.

And the crux of the defence’s argument pivoted upon article 435(3) of the Criminal Code.

That provision states that “Where such other offence not included in the inquiry….shall be altogether separate and distinct from the offence or offences included in the inquiry, a new and separate inquiry shall, on the demand of the Attorney General, be held in regard to such other offence.”

Moreover, if additional charges were added the defence had the right to demand that all witnesses heard so far throughout the compilation of evidence were to testify all over again. 

And if criminal proceedings against Elmushraty were to start from scratch, was he to face new proceedings when he has already spent seven months in preventive custody, argued the lawyers Franco Debono and Jose’ Herrera.

A fresh request for bail now acquired new dimensions.

Following those submissions the court, presided over by Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech, adjourned the case for a decision on both requests.

The court subsequently delivered two decrees.

With respect to the prosecution’s request to add drug charges, the court made reference to article 435(4) of the Criminal Code which stated that “any demand of the Attorney General under the provisions of this article shall be made in writing.”

In this case, the prosecution did not do so, the court said, given that the request had been made verbally. It consequently directed prosecutors to follow the proper procedure laid down by law.

As for the accused’s latest request for bail, the court neither upheld nor turned down the request, giving reasons for this.

After hearing submissions on bail and taking note of decrees previously delivered, both by this court as well as the Criminal Court on Elmushraty’s several bail applications, Magistrate Frendo Dimech issued specific directions to the prosecution.

Earlier this month, the prosecution had declared that it was close to wrapping up its evidence. 

In light of that statement, the court ordered the prosecution to “definitively indicate the witnesses,” specifically civilians, who were still to testify.

The court would decide on the bail request once that information was supplied by the prosecution, said Magistrate Frendo Dimech.

Inspectors Mark Anthony Mercieca, Tonjoe Farrugia and Alfredo Mangion are prosecuting together with AG lawyer Dejan Darmanin.