Judge: Theuma’s pardon does not make his testimony automatically true

The presidential pardon granted to murder middleman Melvin Theuma by disgraced former prime minister Joseph Muscat does not automatically mean he told the truth, Judge Edwina Grima told jurors as she began summing up the evidence in Yorgen Fenech’s trial.

The judge warned jurors to exercise particular caution when assessing evidence given by an accomplice testifying against an accused person.

Theuma admitted acting as an intermediary in the 2017 assassination of journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia and was granted a presidential pardon in 2019 to reveal what he knew about the murder.

Grima explained that the pardon was an extraordinary measure used as a tool in the administration of justice. Its central condition required Theuma to tell the truth. If it were established that he had lied, he could lose the pardon and face prosecution for the crime he admitted.

However, the judge stressed that the pardon did not give Theuma’s evidence greater weight than that of other witnesses.

Jurors must examine whether his testimony was credible, consistent and corroborated by other evidence. They must also consider whether he had an interest in giving a particular version or was attempting to protect somebody else.

The law allows jurors to accept all, part or none of a witness’s testimony, Grima said. A single credible witness can be enough to prove a fact, but evidence from an accomplice granted immunity must be treated with particular care.

The judge contrasted Theuma’s pardon with the plea bargain reached by convicted hitman Vince Muscat, known as il-Koħħu. Muscat admitted his role in the murder and received a reduced 15-year sentence following an agreement between the prosecution and defence that was approved by the court.

The judge also instructed jurors to ignore media headlines, comments made by lawyers and any claims about a “hidden hand”. Their verdict must be based solely on admissible evidence presented during the two-month trial.

“You are not investigators; you are judicators,” she told them, reminding jurors that she was the judge of law while they were the “judges of fact”.

Grima explained that Fenech remains presumed innocent until the moment the verdict is delivered. The prosecution bears the burden of proving its case beyond reasonable doubt, while the defence has no obligation to prove his innocence.

Conflicting testimony does not automatically require an acquittal, she said. Only a conflict creating genuine and substantial reasonable doubt must be resolved in the accused’s favour.

Fenech faces separate charges of complicity in Caruana Galizia’s murder and criminal association. Jurors must return a verdict on each charge.

The judge said prosecutors do not need to establish a motive, although evidence of one may corroborate their case. To convict Fenech of complicity, jurors must find that the necessary acts and criminal intention were proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The judge’s address will continue with a detailed review of the testimony, recordings, digital material and forensic evidence presented throughout the 52-day trial before the jury retires to deliberate.