Malta's former Chief of Staff Keith Schembri has faced sharp scrutiny over a mobile phone that vanished hours before his arrest in November 2019. His contradictory testimony in the Yorgen Fenech murder trial has exposed a critical gap in the investigation into journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia's October 2017 car-bomb assassination, which shocked Malta and drew international attention to corruption allegations.
The most damaging revelation: police testimony confirmed that Schembri was allowed to select which devices would be seized during the search of his Mellieħa villa—a highly unconventional procedure that contradicts his claim that officers "took everything."
Why This Matters:
• Missing evidence: Schembri's personal iPhone, believed to contain crucial communications with Fenech, went offline at 5:04 AM on November 26, 2019—approximately 90 minutes before his arrest—and was never recovered.
• Contradictory accounts: Police testimony reveals that Schembri was allowed to select which devices would be seized during the search of his Mellieħa villa, contradicting his claim that officers "took everything."
• No forensic pursuit: Despite a 48-hour window to remotely access the missing device or create a digital copy of its contents, police investigators never attempted either procedure.
The Disappearing Phone
Telecommunications data presented to the court shows that Schembri's mobile device was active on the morning of his arrest but abruptly disappeared from Malta's mobile network just as authorities prepared to search his residence. When scene-of-crime officers arrived at his home, the phone was nowhere to be found. Schembri insists he simply "lost" it and only realized its absence when police began cataloging seized items at headquarters.
Assistant Police Commissioner Keith Arnaud confirmed that despite thorough searches of both Schembri's office and Mellieħa home, investigators never recovered his personal mobile phone or laptop. An IT forensics expert later testified that no request was ever made to clone or remotely access the device, even though such measures were technically feasible within a limited timeframe.
Photographs taken during the November 2019 search revealed at least two other mobile phones visible in Schembri's residence that were not seized. Scene-of-crime officers told the court they had been explicitly instructed by Arnaud to collect only electronic devices that Schembri himself "flagged" or "indicated" during the search—a highly unconventional approach that raises questions about the integrity of the evidence-gathering process.
What This Means for the Investigation
The missing phone represents a significant evidentiary void in Malta's most high-profile murder investigation. Schembri's device likely contained Signal conversations and call records with Fenech during the critical period leading up to Fenech's arrest aboard his yacht in November 2019. Prosecutors presented the court with screenshots of some Signal exchanges between the two men, but the full scope of their communications remains unknown.
Schembri suggested during testimony that construction workers at his property might have inadvertently taken the phone, but this explanation was neither documented in his official statements nor corroborated by investigating officers. The lack of any serious attempt to trace or remotely access the device has drawn criticism from legal observers who note that standard investigative protocols were seemingly abandoned.
The Malta Police Force has faced mounting scrutiny over its handling of evidence in the Caruana Galizia case, with this latest revelation adding to concerns about selective enforcement and preferential treatment. The decision to allow Schembri to dictate which devices would be seized stands in stark contrast to standard search-and-seizure procedures applied to other suspects.
Fenech's Alleged Confession
Beyond the phone controversy, Schembri's testimony broke new ground when he stated under oath that Yorgen Fenech—the businessman charged with complicity in Caruana Galizia's murder—had "hinted" at his involvement during a private conversation. Schembri recounted that Fenech "made me understand he was involved," a disclosure that left him "frozen." The two men then allegedly "burst into tears and hugged."
Despite this extraordinary admission, Schembri maintained he never reported the conversation to authorities. He justified his silence by claiming he believed Fenech was under the influence of drugs and was not acting alone. Schembri characterized his decision as stemming from loyalty to someone he considered a "very good friend," stating he would "go into the fire" for genuine people—though he now calls that loyalty a "big mistake."
Malta's Office of the Prime Minister features prominently in Schembri's testimony, as he admitted to concealing the depth of his friendship with Fenech from then-Prime Minister Joseph Muscat. He also confirmed being part of a WhatsApp group that included Fenech and Silvio Valletta, the former deputy police commissioner who oversaw the murder investigation. Schembri stated that he and Valletta agreed the case against Fenech "didn't add up"—a remarkable assertion given Valletta's role in leading the inquiry.
Bribery Allegations Surface
In a dramatic turn, Schembri alleged that two of Fenech's defense lawyers—Charles Mercieca and Gianluca Caruana Curran—offered key prosecution witness Johann Cremona €400,000 for favorable testimony. Schembri further claimed the lawyers approached him days before he was scheduled to testify, asking him to "help Yorgen" by giving evidence in his favor.
When Cremona was called to the stand to address these allegations, he appeared visibly anxious and initially refused to answer questions, stating, "I don't want to hurt anyone." The judge rejected his attempt to claim he had "invented it," though Cremona was eventually dismissed without providing substantive testimony. The prosecution has requested a formal confrontation between Schembri and Cremona to resolve the conflicting accounts.
Broader Implications for Malta's Justice System
Schembri faces separate criminal charges for allegedly leaking confidential information from the murder investigation. Messages presented in court showed that his assistant, Charlene Bianco Farrugia, warned Fenech he was being followed just hours before his arrest in 2019. Schembri has denied ever passing sensitive information to Fenech or playing any role in the conspiracy to murder Caruana Galizia.
Throughout his testimony, Schembri branded several prosecution witnesses—including self-confessed middleman Melvin Theuma, whom he called "the biggest liar in Malta"—as fabricators. He denied ever knowing Theuma or George Degiorgio, one of the men convicted of carrying out the bombing, despite Degiorgio's implication of him.
The court has ordered a forensic expert to re-extract data from Schembri's seized devices using updated software, with Fenech's defense team suggesting they possess additional evidence, including previously unseen "chats," that could alter the trajectory of the trial.
Searches of Schembri's government office uncovered folders containing archived copies of Caruana Galizia's blog posts about him and the Malta Government—a detail that underscores the intense scrutiny the journalist's reporting directed at the former chief of staff in the months before her death.
Accountability and the Architecture of Impunity
The ongoing trial is widely viewed in Malta as a test of the country's commitment to dismantling what critics call an "architecture of impunity" that allegedly shielded powerful figures from accountability. Schembri's testimony has exposed intricate relationships between government officials, law enforcement, and the primary suspect in one of Europe's most notorious journalist murders.
The revelations about the missing phone, selective evidence collection, and alleged witness tampering have intensified calls for systemic reforms within Malta's criminal justice system. For Malta residents invested in accountability, these procedural failures raise urgent questions about how future high-stakes investigations will be conducted and whether meaningful safeguards can prevent similar lapses.
As the trial—now on its 26th day—continues, the court faces the complex task of weighing contradictory testimonies, assessing the credibility of witnesses with potential motives to lie, and determining what role, if any, Malta's political establishment played in obstructing justice. For residents following the proceedings, the case represents not just a reckoning with the past but a critical moment for establishing whether the rule of law can function independently of political influence.
