A man who is undergoing extradition proceedings before the Magistrates' Court yesterday filed a writ of summons contesting the validity of the law in terms of which a European arrest warrant was issued in his regard.

Carmelo Borg, 27, of Rabat was arraigned together with Chinese nationals Wei Wang and Lin Yi and charged with conspiracy in human trafficking.

The prosecution informed the court, presided over by Magistrate Joseph Apap Bologna, that the three accused were wanted in Italy to face charges of human trafficking and participating in a criminal organisation.

All three accused are wanted in connection with the Maundy Thursday drowning of six Chinese and Mongolian illegal immigrants some 15 miles off Sicily when they were forced off a boat that allegedly left from Malta.

This was the first arraignment in terms of a European arrest warrant since Malta joined the European Union. The arraignment took place after the arrest warrant was issued against the three by a tribunal in Modica.

Mr Borg filed his writ against the minister responsible for justice and home affairs and against the Attorney General.

He claimed that the Attorney General had commenced proceedings against him in terms of the European arrest warrant that had been legislated by a legal notice issued this year. Such subsidiary legislation was enacted through the powers granted to the Minister for Justice in terms of the Extradition Act.

Mr Borg argued that his case would be heard by the Magistrates' Court as a court of criminal inquiry. Thus, the provisions of the Criminal Code were applicable to his case, as this court had to collect not only the evidence given by the prosecution but also evidence the accused would produce.

This principle clearly resulted from various provisions of the Extradition Act.

However, the subsidiary legislation in terms of which Mr Borg was arraigned precluded him from producing any evidence that might contradict the evidence against him produced by a foreign court.

Furthermore, the prosecution was not bound to produce evidence that was at least of a prima facie level in his regard.

Mr Borg claimed that the Minister for Justice had exceeded his powers in terms of the Extradition Act and had enacted subsidiary legislation that was against the spirit of the principal law. This rendered the administrative action taken by the minister to be ultra vires and consequently null and void.

Mr Borg asked the court to declare that the administrative action on the part of the minister was ultra vires and therefore null and void and to consequently annul the subsidiary law in terms of which he had been arraigned.

Mr Borg also asked the First Hall of the Civil Court to hear his case with urgency.

Together with his writ Mr Borg also filed an application before the Magistrates' Court as a court of criminal judicature asking the court to allow him to produce his evidence in the extradition proceedings against him and this without prejudice to his claim that the subsidiary legislation in terms of which he had been arraigned was null and void.

Lawyers José Herrera and Edward Zammit Lewis were counsel to Mr Borg.