The acquittal of Yorgen Fenech has not closed the file on the murder of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia. On Tuesday, the Office of the Attorney General formally filed an appeal against the 8-1 not guilty verdict delivered earlier this month, arguing that grave irregularities marred the proceedings and that the presiding judge, Edwina Grima, made incorrect legal rulings during the 55-day trial. The Court of Criminal Appeal will now determine whether a new trial should be ordered.
A verdict built on contradiction
Arnold Cassola, writing in the Times of Malta, characterised the trial as a contest of competing lies, a description that captures the central difficulty the nine-member jury faced. The court heard weeks of testimony where key witnesses gave irreconcilable accounts of the same events.
The self-confessed middleman, Melvin Theuma, received a presidential pardon in exchange for his cooperation. Hours of secret recordings he made of conversations with Fenech formed the backbone of the prosecution's case. But his evidence was continually challenged by the defence.
Fenech himself testified for four days. He admitted paying Theuma €50,000, but claimed he did so to stop the murder, not commission it. He later gave Theuma approximately €400,000, he said, under pressure. He pointed the finger squarely at Keith Schembri, the former prime minister's chief of staff, alleging that Schembri was the true mastermind behind the assassination.
Evidence presented to the court included allegations that Fenech made payments exceeding €450,000 to the Degiorgio brothers — the convicted hitmen — to fund their legal defence and keep them quiet. Prosecutors also claimed Fenech used Bitcoin to purchase weapons on the dark web in November 2018, though there was no evidence these weapons ever reached Malta.
Legal strategy and jury doubts
Legal observers noted that the defence strategy was not necessarily to prove innocence, but to sow reasonable doubt. By highlighting contradictions in the investigation and implicating others, including Schembri, the defence aimed to make the jury question the reliability of the state's evidence.
The result was a patchwork of inconsistencies. Kenneth Camilleri, a witness, said Schembri sent him to calm down Theuma. Schembri denied it. A recording of Fenech referring to Schembri sending Camilleri added another layer of contradiction. Fenech's own account shifted; he claimed he was in the United States at a critical time, presenting a credit card statement to challenge Theuma's timeline.
The jury ultimately found the evidence insufficient to convict on charges of complicity in murder and criminal association.
Jury under scrutiny
Just weeks after the verdict, Malta police confirmed an investigation involving members of the jury. Three jurors, a reserve juror, and the husband of a juror were arrested and questioned. The probe centres on whether jurors may have breached their oath, allegedly made public comments on social media before the trial, or had access to a phone while sequestered. All were released on police bail, and no charges have yet been filed.
Judge Grima ordered that testimony from the trial be passed to the police commissioner and to two ongoing magisterial inquiries, leaving open the possibility that further investigations will follow.
Echoes across Europe
The case has drawn uncomfortable parallels with other high-profile crimes against journalists in the European Union. In Slovakia, the murder of investigative journalist Ján Kuciak and his fiancée exposed a web of corruption linking business tycoons and political elites. As in Malta, the alleged mastermind in that case was acquitted of ordering the murder, raising concerns about impunity and the ability of justice systems to hold powerful figures to account.
The public inquiry into Caruana Galizia's murder concluded that the Maltese state bore responsibility for creating conditions that enabled her assassination. It identified a network of corrupt interests spanning government and business that aimed to silence her reporting.
Following the verdict, the Maltese government urged prudence in public comment and reiterated its commitment to seeing justice served through the country's institutions. The appeal filed on September 22 keeps those institutions — and the evidence they gathered — under examination.
What changes now
For residents of Malta, the appeal means the legal process continues. A retrial could be ordered if the Court of Criminal Appeal finds the legal grounds merit it. Depositors and taxpayers are left watching a case that exposed allegations of corruption in energy contracts, payments to convicted hitmen, and a criminal justice system struggling to reconcile sharply conflicting accounts of a brutal crime. The questions of who ordered the murder of the country's most prominent journalist — and why they have not been convicted — remain unanswered.
