Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546553
YORGEN FENECH TRIAL AFTERMATH SUNDAY • 13 SEPTEMBER 2026 | maltatoday When the powerful and well-connected go on trial, who should decide their fate? THE acquittal of Yorgen Fenech has opened a debate over whether Malta's jury system is appropriate for complex, high-profile cases involving powerful people. At least two lawyers, Marti- na Farrugia and Georg Sapiano, have questioned whether such trials should instead be heard by experienced judg- es. In the aftermath of a 55-day trial at the end of which Yorgen Fenech was acquitted of all charges, Martina Far- rugia said it was difficult to expecting nine ordinary people to remain fo- cused while absorbing a large volume of complicated evidence over several weeks. In a Facebook post following the ver- dict, Sapiano raised a related concern: Can ordinary people reasonably be ex- pected to make such a decision when the accused is presented as a wealthy and powerful individual? Sapiano described jurors as nine or- dinary men and women taken from their everyday lives and effectively ex- pected to "behave like heroes". They were asked to interpret the facts and potentially put a powerful man behind bars for life, despite not having chosen such a job. The arguments raise a fundamental question: Should cases of this scale be decided by a jury, or should they be put before a panel of judges? Farrugia points to the length of the proceedings as a flaw. Fifty-five days is a long time to expect jurors to main- tain their attention, particularly when proceedings lasted from 9am to 6pm, she said. The trial also took place dur- ing July and August, meaning jurors were required to spend much of the summer away from their normal lives. There was possibly homesickness, re- strictions on speaking to family and, for some self-employed jurors, the feeling that they were losing money by being required to serve. Another concern for Farrugia was the amount and complexity of infor- mation the jurors had to process. The case involved legal and factual issues, while witnesses gave testimony over a prolonged period. For lay people with- out legal training, retaining and assess- ing all of that information could be particularly difficult, she said. The concern, therefore, is not neces- sarily that jurors deliberately failed in their duty, but whether the conditions of the trial made it increasingly diffi- cult for them to absorb and retain the evidence. The lawyer contrasted this with judges, who are trained to deal with complicated legal arguments and evidence and are professionally accus- tomed to lengthy proceedings. She also argued that judges are less likely to be swayed by courtroom theatrics because they understand the legal con- text behind the arguments being made. Unlike jurors, judges are paid profes- sionals doing this as their job and are not required to put their own work or family life on hold for the duration of a trial, she said. Sapiano's Facebook post adds anoth- er concern. The pressure that could come from the power and influence of the accused. The jurors were con- fronted with a case involving a defend- ant described as extremely wealthy, powerful, with alleged connections reaching into the highest levels of the country's political and institutional structures, and who tried to buy weap- ons and poison off the dark web. Sapiano questioned whether it was reasonable to expect people who had simply been selected for jury service to withstand these circumstances and make a decision entirely unaffected by these considerations. The same con- cern was expressed by Martina Farru- gia. Sapiano contrasted Malta's approach with other countries such as Italy, where mafia-style killings can be heard by panels of specialised judges. Anoth- er advantage, he argued, is that judges provide reasoned verdicts explaining how they reached a conclusion, some- thing a jury is not expected to do. Farrugia also questioned whether the same evidence would have produced the same result before a trained judge or expert tribunal, particularly given the volume of evidence and the fact that the events took place nine years ago. None of this, however, establishes why the jury reached its 8-1 verdict. There are other possible explanations. Sapiano himself acknowledged that some may believe the jury simply did not believe the prosecution's principal witness, middleman Melvin Theuma. Others may think that the defence suc- ceeded in creating reasonable doubt by presenting an alternative interpreta- tion of the evidence. The crux of the argument, howev- er, is not whether the jury was right or wrong. It is whether Malta should continue relying on normal people to decide cases involving vast amounts of evidence, lengthy proceedings and ex- ceptionally powerful defendants. The jury system is built on the prin- ciple that normal people should have a role in determining guilt. But the Fenech trial has raised the question of whether that principle should ap- ply without exception. It is a question that also arose in the past when a jury acquitted one of the hitmen and the alleged mastermind charged with the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana, then Prime Minister Eddie Fenech Adami's righthand man. But there is also a question of protec- tion. Martina Farrugia pointed to Italy, where judges and magistrates involved in cases of this nature are offered pro- tection while proceedings are ongoing, arguing that even professional judges may require safeguards when dealing with dangerous and powerful defend- ants. No one is simply sent home and asked to fend for themselves, she said. She also argued that Malta should es- tablish tribunals for mafia-style crimes staffed by experienced prosecutors and judges who can be afforded full protection. LAURA CALLEJA lcalleja@mediatoday.com.mt Left to right: Lawyers Martina Farrugia and Georg Sapiano Can ordinary people reasonably be expected to make such a decision when the accused is presented as a wealthy and powerful individual?