Seven Syrian men, in preventive custody since their arraignment in May over suspicious jihadist activity on social media, are claiming a breach of their right to a fair hearing since their continued arrest was not reviewed fortnightly in terms of the law. 

Ajil Al Muhsen, 21, Adnan Maashi, 21, Yazan Abdulaziz, 26, Ahmed Kadas, 25, Khalil Al Hamoud, 21, Ahmed Ahmed, 27 and Mohammed Mohammed, 24, were targeted by police investigations after their social media activity raised suspicion.

They were eventually charged with terrorism.

The men fled Syria and travelled to Malta in 2017 when Syrian government forces drove out the ISIS terrorist group from the area where they lived. 

In August 2022, police began to investigate a group of people who published extremist material related to ISIS on their social media accounts, later roping in the European police agency’s assistance in the investigations. 

On April 29, the seven suspects were rounded up during early morning raids and two days later were charged in court, all pleading not guilty to distributing material aimed at inciting terrorism, recruiting or encouraging third parties to carry out terrorist acts or planning to travel abroad as part of a terrorist plot. 

During the arraignment, their lawyers did not request bail but sought to obtain the men’s discharge, arguing that there was not enough prima facie evidence for the accused to stand trial on indictment. 

That argument was turned down and all seven were remanded in custody. 

An application for bail was filed before the hearing that was set for June 22, in time for the magistrate presiding over the compilation to decide upon the request. 

But the magistrate was unable to do so since the records of the case were sent to court by email from the Attorney General’s Office “just minutes” before the start of the sitting.

By that time, the presiding magistrate had already abstained from deciding upon bail, citing the fact that the necessary case file was not yet at hand. 

As soon as the hearing was over, the records were sent back to the AG’s Office, effectively denying the accused’s lawyers the chance of making submissions on bail. 

On July 27 the records once again reached court via electronic mail at 9am. 

During that hearing, the accused’s lawyers requested the court to defer the case so that they could file an application for bail and make the relative submissions before the file was sent back to the AG’s Office.

But that request was turned down and as soon as the hearing was over, the file was referred back to the AG. 

The defence minuted its objection that day, pointing out that the situation breached the accused’s fundamental rights. 

The accused had also filed separate habeas corpus proceedings to challenge the validity of their arrest but their claim was rejected by the criminal court, effectively denying them the only ordinary legal remedy available.

Citing European caselaw on pre-trial detention, the accused’s lawyers claimed that the situation was in breach of their fundamental right to a fair trial since their arrest had not been reviewed every 15 days in terms of the law.

They requested the court to provide all adequate remedies including that of ordering the applicants’ release from jail. 

Lawyers Jose’ Herrera, David Camilleri and Matthew Xuereb signed the application filed against the Attorney General and the State Advocate.