Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1546553
YORGEN FENECH TRIAL AFTERMATH SUNDAY • 13 SEPTEMBER 2026 | maltatoday And in law, words can themselves carry criminal significance. An ac- complice need not physically partic- ipate in the execution of an offence if the prosecution can prove that, with the necessary criminal intent, they ordered, instructed or otherwise in- stigated another to commit it. The alleged €150,000 payment was therefore not simply another dramat- ic detail. Prosecutors relied on it as further evidence of Fenech's alleged participation in bringing the crime about. The defence's sustained at- tacks on Theuma's credibility were consequently attacks on some of the evidence underpinning those legal ingredients. To understand the case against Fenech, then, it is worth starting not with the bomb that ended Carua- na Galizia's life or the recordings or even Melvin Theuma, but with the four provisions of the Criminal Code around which the two charges were built. Taken in isolation, the provisions appear relatively straightforward. Article 211 defines the underlying crime; Article 42 sets out the cir- cumstances in which somebody can become an accomplice to another person's crime; Article 43 establish- es the punishment applicable to that accomplice; and Article 48A crim- inalises an agreement to commit an offence punishable by imprisonment. Applying those provisions to weeks of testimony, recordings, disputed conversations and circumstantial ev- idence was a considerably more com- plicated exercise. Article 211: The underlying crime The logical starting point is the crime Fenech was alleged to have been complicit in—the wilful homi- cide of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Article 211 of the Criminal Code provides that a person is guilty of wilful homicide where, "maliciously, with intent to kill another person or to put the life of such other person in manifest jeopardy, he causes the death of such other person." The provision therefore contains more than the simple fact that some- body died. There must be the act causing death and the necessary in- tention, mens rea in lawerly speak. Wilful homicide carries the punish- ment of life imprisonment. In Fenech's case, however, this was only the starting point. He was not accused of placing the bomb beneath Caruana Galizia's car, keeping watch on her movements or sending the message which detonated it. As Judge Edwina Grima explained to jurors when directing them on the law, the direct executors identi- fied in the case were brothers George and Alfred Degiorgio and accomplice Vince Muscat. George Degiorgio det- onated the bomb while the others kept watch. Fenech stood accused not as a principal offender, but as an accomplice. That distinction takes us to arguably the most important provision in un- derstanding the case against Fenech. Article 42: Complicity Article 42 provides several routes through which a person can become an accomplice to a crime. Among them is a person who commands another to commit an offence; in- stigates its commission by means of bribes, promises, threats or other means contemplated by the law; or gives instructions for the commis- sion of the offence. The provision also captures some- body who knowingly provides in- struments or other means used in the crime, or who knowingly aids or abets the perpetrators in the acts through which the crime is prepared or completed. This is an important distinction. Criminal responsibility for complici- ty does not depend on physically car- rying out the final act which causes the victim's death. The Attorney General alleged that Fenech had become an accomplice by ordering another person to commit the murder; causing it to be commit- ted through gifts, promises or other means; giving instructions; inciting or strengthening another person's resolve; or promising assistance, sup- port or compensation after the fact. In theory, therefore, the legal ques- tion is relatively simple: Did Fenech perform an act capable of amount- ing to complicity under Article 42, accompanied by malicious criminal intent? In practice, answering that ques- tion meant deciding what to make of some of the most heavily contested evidence of the entire trial. It is here that Melvin Theuma becomes cen- tral. The self-confessed middleman gave jurors an account of the conversa- tions, instructions and payments, which the prosecution relied upon to establish the acts of complicity con- templated by Article 42. Theuma testified that, some weeks before the 2017 general election was called, Fenech called him to a meet- ing outside the Blue Elephant restau- rant at Portomaso. There, according to Theuma, Fenech said he wanted Caruana Galizia killed because she was about to reveal information con- cerning "Uncle Ray", and instructed him to contact George Degiorgio to organise the murder. The significance of that alleged con- versation went beyond Fenech simply knowing about a murder plot. Under Article 42, an order, instruction or instigation can constitute a form of complicity without the accomplice physically participating in the crime. The reference to "Uncle Ray", mean- while, went to motive rather than in- tent. Motive, the reason why someone may have wanted a crime committed, is distinct from the criminal intent required by law and is not, in itself, an ingredient of the offence. It could, however, form part of the wider evi- dence from which jurors were asked to assess Fenech's alleged intent. The prosecution was therefore relying on Theuma's account primarily as evidence that Fenech had allegedly helped set the murder in motion. Theuma said Alfred Degiorgio sub- sequently quoted €150,000 for the murder, including a €30,000 non-re- fundable deposit. He testified that he communicated the price to Fenech, who initially put the plan on hold be- cause the general election had been called. According to Theuma the plan was revived as soon as the election result was known with Fenech handing him Complicity, conspiracy and Melvin Theuma kept denying the defence's suggestion that his pardon was conditional on not identifying Keith Schembri as the mastermind (Sketch: Anna Calleja) < FROM PREVIOUS PAGE