Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1537976
7 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 30 JULY 2025 NEWS El Hiblu 3: Court rejects bid to annul bill of indictment A court has rejected an attempt by the El Hiblu 3 to annul the bill of indictment issued against them. In a judgement on Tuesday, the court rejected the defence's arguments to nullify the bill of indictment that had been filed against them, as well as at- tempts to nullify the terrorism charges against them. Abdalla Bari and Amara Kru- mak are being charged with three counts of terrorism, two counts of illegal arrest, three counts of private violence, and unlawful confinment in con- nection to a maritime incident on the El Hiblu 1. A third man who absconded from Malta is being tried sep- arately. In March 2019, the three ac- cused were arrested over the hijack of the El Hiblu 1, a mer- chant vessel that had rescued them in the central Mediterra- nean along with over a hundred other refugees and migrants. The vessel was hijacked to pre- vent the captain from taking them back to Libya and hand- ing them over to Libyan au- thorities. A bill of indictment against them was filed in November 2023, but their defence team sought to declare the bill null based on several arguments, particularly concerning the terrorism charges but also a general point about the narra- tive. The defence argued that the Bill of Indictment's narrative, specifically the part describing "a large number of the rescued people" banging on the cabin glass and shouting, does not attribute these acts to the ac- cused. They claimed that by includ- ing this narrative, the Attorney General was unfairly linking the accused to actions commit- ted by third parties, despite a lack of evidence. Regarding the first count of terrorist, the defence said the articles referenced to in the bill are definitions within the Criminal Code, not opera- tive provisions that establish a crime. They also argued that the facts presented do not describe how the accused's actions may seriously damage a country, es- pecially since the claimed acts occurred outside Maltese terri- torial waters. Moreover, they argued that diverting a vessel to Malta is not an act of terrorism unless specific demands were made to the state within its territo- rial waters, threatening serious damage if unment. The defence claimed no evi- dence showed the accused in- tended to cause damage to the Maltese State. Their ultimate intention was to avoid return- ing to Libya and reach Europe. Finally, the defence stated that the arrival of approxi- mately one hundred migrants cannot be considered "serious damage" to Malta, as the coun- try has established procedures to handle such eventualities. Regarding the second count of terrorism, which referred to extensive destruction of infra- structure, the defence argued that a vessel like the El Hiblu 1 does not fall under the legal definition of infrastructure. Moreover, the defence claimed there was no evidence that the accused had the means to destroy the vessel, and any alleged actions of third parties should not be attributed to them. They said the accused's only contribution was acting as interpreters to calm people. The defence pointed out that tools found on board were not capable of destroying the ves- sel, and no fingerprints of the accused were found on them. They cited the First Officer's testimony confirming the ac- cused did not hold these tools. On the third count of ter- rorism, the defence argued that the article referenced to defines "terrorist activities" but does not constitute a stan- dalone criminal offence. The defence also said that the ac- cused were being charged twice for the same offence (seizing a ship), as this was also the basis of the first count. When rejecting the pleas, the court affirmed the attorney general's discretion in drafting the narrative part of the bill of indictment, stating it is not bound to reflect every piece of evidence from the compilation. The court also emphasised that the narrative of the bill does not bind the jurors and holds no probative value. Only the evidence presented during the trial will be used by the ju- rors to determine the facts. Regarding the nullity of the first count, the court found that the bill of indictment was structured correctly and aligned with the Criminal Code. The court said that the annul- ment of a bill of indictment on- ly occurs due to a "substantial defect of form" that cannot be cured by amendment and must be evident "from the fact of the bill of indictment itself". This was not the case here, the court said. The court ruled that whether the recounted facts are suffi- ciently supported by evidence is a question of fact for the ju- rors to determine during the trial, not for the court to decide at this preliminary stage. The court applied the same reasoning for the nullity of the second count, reiterating that mere omissions or imperfect drafting by the attorney gener- al do not amount to nullity of the indictment. On the nullity of the third count, the court said that the third and first counts can co- exist, dispelling the defence's claim of being charged twice for the same offence. Based on these reasons, the court rejected all preliminary pleas concerning the nullity of the indictment and ordered the continuation of the case. NICOLE MEILAK nmeilak@mediatoday.com.mt The three young men had been the only English speakers on the vessel that rescued them and 108 other migrants, acting as interlocutors between the ship's captain and the migrants