Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546133
8 maltatoday | SUNDAY • 9 AUGUST 2026 LAW We all depend on business Redefining cannabis, redefining crime ON 18 December 2021, Malta his- torically rewrote its cannabis laws. Act LXVI of 2021 introduced a regulated framework for the per- sonal use of cannabis, permitting limited possession and home cul- tivation whilst also creating the legal foundations for non-profit cannabis associations. However, in the midst of all this a technical amendment went unnoticed. The legal definition of cannabis under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance was changed, eventually proving to be decisive in an entirely differ- ent type of case. On Valentine's Day 2021, police entered a St Julian's hotel room following a report of drug use. They arrested a 21-year-old man and a 19-year-old woman who had allegedly been smoking can- nabis. A photograph released after the raid showed a half-smoked joint, a small amount of cannabis and a grinder. At that time Malta had already removed criminal convictions for certain cases of simple possession, but the law still gave the police the power to make arrests and conduct interrogations on those found using cannabis. The St Ju- lian's hotel raid was not the first. In the judgment delivered in Po- lice vs Joerg Herbert Schellham- mer on 27 July 2026, the law had already changed while the prose- cution remained pending. More importantly, parliament had not merely reduced the punishment attached to an offence but it had changed whether the substance at the centre of the proceedings le- gally constituted prohibited can- nabis at all. Schellhammer's case began less than three months after the 2021 reform came into force. On 8 March 2022, custom officers at the UPS centre in Luqa inter- cepted two packages addressed to Stone Market Co. Ltd after a cus- toms dog indicated their contents. Two days later, Schellhammer was arrested when he went to col- lect the packages. Cannabis-relat- ed products and jars containing cannabis grass were found in- side, while further plant material was seized during searches at the Stone Market shops and offices. Schellhammer did not deny his connection to the substances. During his police interrogation, he accepted responsibility for the products and explained that he had imported them to sell them through his shops. He reiterated that his business was legal "to the extent that he even paid taxes on his sales". That statement gave the case an unusual factual background, but the payment of tax was not what ultimately brought the prosecu- tion to an end. Declaring income does not make otherwise unlawful conduct legal. The decisive issue was instead the chemical compo- sition of the substances and how parliament had defined cannabis by the time the court delivered its judgment. The court-appointed expert an- alysed buds and cannabis grass with a total weight of approxi- mately 1.74kg. THC and CBD were detected, but the average THC concentration was below 0.2%. When cross-examined in April 2026, pharmacist Godwin Sammut confirmed that finding and added that, under the defi- nition then in force, "none of the illegal substances analysed in this case would be deemed to be ille- gal". The prosecution therefore found itself in an unusual position. It had evidence that Schellhammer had imported a substantial quanti- ty of cannabis plant material for commercial sale. Yet the court first had to decide whether that material still fell within the legal meaning of cannabis, as defined in the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. Before examining the merits, the court felt it "imperative" to con- sider the applicable definition of cannabis and determine what, "today", was considered an illegal substance. Under the definition introduced in 2021, cannabis included the in- florescences and leaves of a plant of the cannabis genus, its resin and preparations derived from it. However, the law excluded cannabis seeds and cannabinoid products containing no more than 0.2% THC. That wording left room for a distinction between low-THC cannabinoid prod- ucts and the raw flowers, buds or leaves of the plant itself. Parliament amended the defi- nition again in 2025. The new wording expressly excluded in- florescences, leaves, extracts and products derived from non-psy- choactive phytocannabinoids containing no more than 0.2% psychoactive cannabinoids. The amendment was significant be- cause the exclusion was no longer limited to the general expression "cannabinoid products"; it now expressly referred to the plant ma- terial involved in Schellhammer's case Magistrate Elaine Rizzo, ac- knowledged under the previous definition, it may have been ar- gued that importing or possess- ing part of the cannabis plant re- mained criminal even where the THC level did not exceed 0.2%. However, she added that this was "definitely not the case" following the later amendments introduced in 2025. The case had therefore moved beyond the question of wheth- er Schellhammer had imported the substances or intended to sell them. It had become a more funda- mental question of criminal law: Could a person be convicted un- der an earlier law when, before final judgment, an amendment to the law had altered the definition so that the conduct no longer con- stituted an offence? The answer was a clear 'no' and the magistrate refused to proceed since the alleged illegality had ceased to exist. OVER my decades represent- ing businesses and working at the heart of Malta's tourism sector, I've watched a danger- ous narrative take root—the idea that private investment exists simply to make rich peo- ple richer. When a new project starts, the default reaction too often drifts into cynicism. It is time for a reality check. Malta has no oil fields, no gold mines, and no vast agricultur- al plains. We have no natural wealth buried under our feet. Every single euro that pays for our public healthcare, our schools, our pensions, and our infrastructure originates from one place—a private individual or company willing to put their own money on the line. There is a fundamental mis- understanding of how a busi- ness actually operates. A busi- ness gives far more back to society in the wealth it gener- ates than it ever retains in prof- it for itself. Before an investor sees a sin- gle cent of return, that capital has already built livelihoods. It pays local wages. It feeds local suppliers, contractors, legal firms, and tech providers. It pays the VAT and corporate taxes that keep our state func- tioning. By the time profit is calcu- lated, the vast majority of that money is already circulating through Maltese households. Risking capital isn't greed—it's the fuel of our economy. With- out it, the engine stops. That said, loving private en- terprise doesn't mean writ- ing a blank check for reckless growth. Having spent decades helping build Malta's econom- ic capacity, I know we have reached a clear turning point. We are a small island with hard physical limits. We can no longer measure success by sheer volume, more footprint, more density, more numbers for the sake of numbers. Our focus now must shift en- tirely to smart, careful invest- ment. We need private capital targeted at quality, modern- ising our infrastructure, and raising the yield of our tourism product so that growth actual- ly improves the daily life of the Maltese resident. If we allow public discourse to turn hostile toward private enterprise, capital will simply pack up and move elsewhere. We must hold businesses to high standards, demand re- spect for our communities, and expect quality. But let's drop the populist myth that invest- ment is an enemy. Without private risk, there is no public reward. And in a na- tion with no natural resources, we literally cannot afford to forget that. JULIAN MIFSUD Mifsud & Mifsud Advocates Chairman for Town Centre Management Paceville and deputy president for the Malta Chamber of SMEs Philip Fenech When a new project starts, the default reaction too often drifts into cynicism