Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1543963
A 45-year-old man from Mar- sa is set to face trial before the Criminal Court after filing a re- quest to have his case heard by the Court of Magistrates one day outside the legal time-limit. Kurt Buttigieg is charged with possession of approximately 1kg of cocaine in circumstances indicating it was not intended for personal use. He also faces charges of failing to obey police orders, reckless driving, dam- aging third-party property, and unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition without a po- lice licence. Buttigieg allegedly threw a package containing the drugs out of his car during a police chase, which had been initiated after authorities received infor- mation about the drugs. The bill of indictment was filed by the Attorney General in Sep- tember 2025 and Buttigieg was formally notified on 19 Novem- ber 2025. On 27 November 2025, Butti- gieg filed an application request- ing that his case be heard by the Court of Magistrates instead of the Criminal Court. However, the Attorney General objected, arguing that the request had been filed outside the strict legal time-limit. Under Maltese law, an accused person has seven days from noti- fication of the bill of indictment or from the end of the compi- lation of evidence to file such a request. The court clarified that this time-limit is peremptory, meaning it must be strictly ob- served, and that the "seven days" refer to calendar days, not work- ing days. Since Buttigieg filed his appli- cation eight days after notifica- tion, it was deemed to have been submitted late. The Criminal Court agreed with the Attorney General's po- sition and ruled the application could not be considered. As a result, the court refused to take cognisance of the request. This means that Buttigieg will proceed to be tried before the Criminal Court, where cases are typically heard by a jury. 4 maltatoday | WEDNESDAY • 18 MARCH 2026 prosecution objected, citing the seri- NEWS MAYA GALEA mgalea@mediatoday.com.mt Cocaine suspect to face jury trial after filing court application a day late The Marsaskala car chase led to a 1kg cocaine bust (Photo: Malta Police Force) A freezing order challenge by Onda Blu restaurateuers, ac- countant Carlos Dimech, 32, and Keith Testa, 34, have failed in a constitutional challenge against the blocking of all their assets. The decision came after a court ruled the legal framework in place at the time did not breach their fundamental rights. Dimech and Testa, in their per- sonal capacity and as directors of Pietà Marina Caterers Ltd which operates the restaurant Onda Blu in Pietà, in connection with suspected fuel smuggler Darren Debono were charged with mon- ey laundering and other financial crimes. Both pleaded not guilty. A freezing and seizure order over all their assets was granted, resulting in a blanket order cov- ering their entire property, in- cluding assets allegedly acquired through legitimate means such as employment, business activity, inheritance, and donations. Dimech and Testa subsequently filed constitutional proceedings. The pair argued the freezing of their entire patrimony was disproportionate and unlawful, arguing that the order should be limited only to assets suspected of being proceeds of crime. They claimed the freezing of all assets, including legitimate ones, breached their right to property, the absence of an effective rem- edy to challenge the scope of the order during ongoing proceed- ings violated their right to a fair hearing and access to justice. They also argued that the law did not allow them to prove, dur- ing the proceedings, that certain assets were unrelated to criminal activity. They emphasised the system created an unjust and dispropor- tionate burden, forcing them to live under financial restrictions despite being presumed inno- cent. The court rejected all these ar- guments. It confirmed that freez- ing orders in money laundering cases are precautionary meas- ures, not punishments. Their purpose is to prevent accused persons from disposing of assets that may later be confiscated if they are found guilty. The measure pursued a legiti- mate public interest, namely the fight against financial crime. The law also provided sufficient pro- cedural safeguards, including the possibility to request variations of the order and to appeal. The court noted that the law allowed requests for variation of the order in specific circum- stances including authorisation for payments, including debts and essential expenses, access to a fixed allowance - €600 every two weeks - to ensure a "decent standard of living and the possi- bility to challenge the order be- fore the Criminal Court. a rem- edy the applicants had not fully utilised. The court ultimately found no breach of a right to a fair hearing, the right to an effective remedy or the right to property. The court acknowledged that Maltese law has since been sig- nificantly amended through Act VI of 2024, which now requires freezing orders to be more tar- geted and limited to assets linked to suspected criminal activity. It clarified that these reforms do not mean that the previous legal framework was unconstitution- al. Rather, they represent an im- provement in balancing enforce- ment and individual rights. Costs were ordered against the applicants. Judge Rachel Montebello pre- sided over the case. Freezing order challenge by Onda Blu restaurateurs denied The Onda Blu restaurant in Pietà