Interview • February 15 2004

Zeppi il-Hafi had a trump card – Meinrad Calleja

For the first time since being accused of the attempted murder of the Prime
Minister’s personal assistant Richard Cachia Caruana, Meinrad Calleja found not guilty of the crime speaks to Karl Schembri in this interview

This is your first week after a marathon jury of four weeks. What are your first comments?
I was fortunate to have been able to prove my innocence. There are a lot of people who didn't have that luck. A lot of people have ended up in prison unfairly. I'm very happy for my family, which had to go through a trauma for all these years; they always had faith in my innocence until the last minute. I was facing a lot of obstacles; a media campaign against me, the politicisation of my case and a great emphasis on the pardons given - which then had to be justified through guilty verdicts - which didn't happen. All these pressures were against me. I also had my doubts about how impartial the court would be and in fact I filed cases on that point both at the Maltese courts and at the European Court of Human Rights.

You had doubts yourself about how fair such a trial could be. What is your position now that you have been given a not guilty verdict?
Yes, in fact I wrote to that effect to the Commission for the Administration of Justice. I was afraid that public opinion was contaminated through the pre-trial prejudicial publicity.

But what to do you say now that the sentence is in your favour?
I feel very happy to have had conscientious jurors, who decided according to their own conscience and in respect to their oath, but I know that there are a lot of people in prison - both those who have been through a jury and those who still have to go through one - who did not or will not have the same luck I had.

What went through your mind in those minutes before you were given the verdict?
Until Sunday around 2.30pm I was perfectly calm. I knew we had done everything possible to prove my innocence. I had a lot of trust in my lawyers. I knew there was no proof of my involvement because I was perfectly innocent, there was no proof, because I was accused of something I didn't commit. But in the last minutes before the verdict was given, in the last half-hour, I was afraid that I was facing a lot of forces against me which could have influenced the jurors negatively.

The first statement given by the Prime Minister after the verdict was that the jury system should be changed. What was your reaction?
I think it should be changed as a lot of people have been condemned unfairly. In the case of Charles Attard (Iz-Zambi), for example, I believe his case should be reviewed. He should have a new trial because it seems there are a lot of possibilities that he wasn't involved in the way he had admitted to originally.
As to the Prime Minister's comments, he has been in government for a lot of years and if he ever saw anything wrong with the system he should have thought about it beforehand, he has had enough time to change it. He cannot make those comments after a jury just because he didn't like the verdict. It is very irresponsible, on the Prime Minister's part to do that, especially in the light of the administration of justice in our country. He is basically giving a vote of no-confidence to the Maltese law courts.
Moreover, I can't believe how we can ever have impartial decisions taken solely by judges who are politically appointed by the government of the day. I also say this in the light of what happened last year, when we saw that judges themselves were not that loyal to the oath they had taken.

You have already been found guilty of drug trafficking. Were you concerned this would have influenced the jurors?
Yes, especially because of the media. The media weren't just against me on the drugs case, which was a separate crime. There were a lot of allegations in my regard. For example there was once a report about an alleged meeting with the Libyan secret services regarding the Pope's visit to Malta, when the Pope has come and gone and returned and gone back again and nothing happened to him. There were stories about 'assassins landing at secluded bays', I remember them clearly, I think on The Malta Independent. There were other stories about me planning a coup d'etat with 40 mercenaries, a lot of inventions. So apart from the notoriety I had earned over the years because of the drugs case I also received vexatious and prejudicial comments which were a complete fabrication.

But you never publicly rebutted these claims you're mentioning?
I didn't feel the need as they were so ludicrous and preposterous, but I was still concerned that jurors could be influenced. I did rebut some of the claims through letters I sent to newspapers.

This is the first time you've testified in a trial in connection with the attempted murder of Richard Cachia Caruana, and this is also the first time you're speaking publicly about it. Why did you wait all these years to speak?
Yes this is the first time I've spoken. I believed that I had to speak in court, where the important decisions were taken, and that I should not speak to the media when my charges were pending.
I'm speaking today for the first time because circumstances have manifestly and clearly proven my innocence. Now I feel it is the moment to comment on the conclusion of this whole episode. I want to start a new chapter in my life and leave all this behind. The story ends here as far as I'm concerned.

On Tuesday on Bondi plus Zeppi l-Hafi told you on TV that now that the case is closed and that you cannot be prosecuted again for the same crime, “you should be a man and admit” you commissioned him to kill Cachia Caruana. What is your reply?
He should be a man himself and admit that he has been lying about me, as I had nothing whatsoever to do with this case. I wish he stopped trying to justify the generous and suspicious pardons he earned through rhetorical remarks. He should examine his own conscience; if justice is not done on earth, it will be done by God at the end of the day.

The Prime Minister believed Zeppi l-Hafi through all these years to the point of standing by his decision to pardon him. Do you have anything to say to the Prime Minister now that you've been declared innocent?
The facts speak for themselves but he was too rash in believing him. I don't want to state my suspicions - that's an issue he has to deal with his conscience. Only he knows what he was told in the remissa (shed), but I have never heard of any Prime Minister in the world who interfered in this way in investigations, meeting people in suspicious circumstances without any witnesses, without any police present, against any court condition. I think he was very, very hasty in his decision. He was emotionally involved and therefore he wasn't objective and rational.

Do you have any theory about this case?
I have no theories, but there are two possibilities: either Zeppi l-Hafi did it on his own without any commission from someone else, or else he was commissioned by someone else, maybe for reasons related to pending tender contracts at the time, with the patent of Mafia-style tactics and violence.

There are many who believe that you were found not guilty because there wasn't one credible witness in this jury. Even Nicholas Jensen himself changed his version along the years.
I believe that had this jury, at the early stages of prima facie compilation of evidence, been judged by an independent and impartial tribunal without all the political pressures there were in the midst of an electoral campaign, it would have been dismissed offhand. It would have been dismissed in the UK and in several other European countries.

Zeppi l-Hafi was the only consistent witness, he was the only one who stuck to his version
Zeppi l-Hafi is ex admissis complici (his word is that of a self-admitted accomplice) - he is only consistent in his lies. There is absolutely no truth in what he says. He is just in a conspiracy with himself or with whoever commissioned him to save his own skin - these are his own words.

Do you believe he has been blackmailing the Prime Minister, as Alfred Sant has alleged?
That's up to the Prime Minister to say; I can't answer that. All I can say is that Zeppi l-Hafi had told me that he has a kambjala (a bill of exchange, in this case meaning a trump card) which he can redeem at any time he wants to and avoid jail. The facts show that that is exactly the case.

Do you believe the truth will ever come out?
No. I think the case will stop here, people will be alienated by other matters, the police won't investigate any further, and the story will end here.

You will be spending another two and a half years in prison: you have an appeals case related to the drugs trial and a lot of time. How will you be spending that time and how do you look at your future?
I will go on as usual; studying, reading and writing, meeting my family. I hope there will be some kind of pardon to all prisoners without any discrimination, not like the three pardons granted to Zeppi l-Hafi, or like court cases involving people high up in society, who despite serious allegations ended up with a nulle prosequi (the prosecution dropped the case) or like the pending case of two judges who were never arrested and put in prison. Now that we're joining Europe and we're opening a new chapter in our country's history, I hope the authorities have the good conscience to give an amnesty of three months for every year prisoners have to spend here and a reduction in the penalty, indiscriminately. I also wish to thank all the volunteers working with prisoners, particularly Fr Mark Montebello's group Mid-Dlam ghad-Dawl, who help a lot of prisoners coping here, particularly those who are still innocent.