Couple charged with immigration offences after trying to flee Malta for Italy

A Nigerian couple have been charged with immigration offences after being stopped at the airport while trying to leave Malta for Italy with their three-year-old child.

In separate arraignments before Magistrate Victor Axiak on Thursday, Police Inspector Lara Butters charged Abuchi John, 29, and her husband Ajoke Shittu, 31, with possession and use of forged passports and with making false declarations to the immigration authorities.

The inspector explained that the defendants and their three-year-old daughter had tried to catch a flight to Naples yesterday, using counterfeit documents. “It was a family,” confirmed the inspector, “husband, wife and 3 year-old daughter.”

She said that the defendants had consulted with lawyer Martin Farrugia before releasing a statement to the police. “They had arrived in Malta in 2020 and their asylum application was rejected, as had their appeal. Financial hardship led them to try and move abroad so they resorted to using false documents,” the inspector said.

The mother was arraigned first. Farrugia told the court that she would be pleading not guilty to the charges. He objected to the inspector’s request to amend the date mentioned in the charges from “16 January and the days and weeks before” to read “17 January and the days and weeks before.”

Farrugia said the request had been made after the charges had been signed and registered. The amendment to the charges “made the grave implication that the offence also took place on preceding days,” submitted the lawyer.

The court accepted the prosecution’s request and ordered the amended charges be read out again to the defendant, who reiterated her not guilty plea.

The defence then requested bail, with Inspector Butters objecting to the woman’s release from custody. Stressing the serious nature of the crime, the prosecutor said that there was a clear risk of absconding and added that the woman had been living in rented accommodation which has since been rented out to someone else.

Farrugia argued that bail could only be denied to prevent the defendant from interfering with evidence, all of which was documentary, and witnesses, of which there were none. The court pointed out that the risk of absconding was also a factor to be considered, but Farrugia countered that this risk could be mitigated by tools that were at the court’s disposal.

The court could order the defendant to reside at a fixed place, submitted the lawyer, suggesting that she could stay at the same address she had previously occupied. The lawyer stressed that the woman was still an asylum seeker.

“We are told the application [for asylum] has been refused, but we have not seen anything official yet. This does not mean my client is not an asylum seeker - she can still apply for international protection on other grounds. My client has requested asylum and is still requesting asylum…. she is seeking asylum in this country and also cannot be refouled back to her country.”

Farrugia told the court that the Agency for the Welfare of Asylum Seekers (AWAS) was also assisting her and could provide accommodation.

On her part, Inspector Butters told the court that she confirmed the rejection of the asylum application with the relevant database, arguing that the family had run out of legal options.

“They cannot file another application for asylum. AWAS is not supposed to keep people there once their asylum process is rejected, so unfortunately for this family, this cannot be accepted,” Butters said.

The court was told that the three-year-old child was currently being cared for by Appoġġ and that if the mother were to be remanded in custody, the police would ask that a care order be issued for the child.

The defence continued to insist that there was doubt about the prosecution’s claim, adding that in any case, a person seeking asylum could be forcibly returned to a country where there was a risk of persecution (refouled).

The court replied that refoulement wasn’t the issue. “The court needs a place where the lady will be residing if released on bail.”

The magistrate asked the AWAS representative to clarify the situation. AWAS representative Sarah Stafrace took the stand at the court’s request.

“I can confirm that in her situation, with a young child, AWAS will accept her and house her until court proceedings are concluded,” Stafrace said, explaining that the woman would either reside at the Marsa Open Centre or another reception centre.

“We’ve had cases where rejected asylum seekers were allowed to stay – children, single mothers, mental health issues, physical disabilities… The agency always strives to keep family units together”, she added.

After hearing this testimony, Inspector Butters submitted that the prosecution would not object to bail, due to the child.

Granting the request for bail, the court ordered the woman to sign a bail book 3 times a week and observe a curfew. No bail deposit was imposed, the court instead binding the woman to observe her bail conditions with a €20,000 personal guarantee.

The magistrate explained to the defendant what was expected of her while on bail and what she stood to lose by failing to follow the conditions set out by the court.

Father not so lucky

A man presented as the woman’s 31-year-old husband, Ajoke Shittu, was also arraigned on Thursday afternoon. Inspector Butters told the court that he had been arrested at the same time and in the same circumstances as his wife.

He had told the police that he was desperate after his asylum application had been rejected and needed to go abroad to seek a better life for his family. Later in the statement he stopped being cooperative, the inspector added.

The man initially pleaded guilty when asked how he responded to the charges. “For my family, yes,” he said when asked to confirm his admission. The court asked Shittu for a yes or no answer. “Are you guilty?” asked the magistrate.

The defendant appeared confused but shook his head. “No.” he said.

Bail was then requested by the man’s defence lawyer, Martin Farrugia. The prosecution objected, with Inspector Butters arguing that the man had managed to buy false documents so as to leave Malta with his family. Inspector Butters stressed that this was a serious crime and told the court that the defendant told her that he didn’t have any money and neither did he have a place to live.

For the defence, Farrugia stressed that at this stage the charges dealt with allegations and that his client was still presumed innocent, making similar submissions to those he had made with respect to the defendant’s wife.

“My client is an asylum seeker. As an asylum seeker there are options which he can avail himself of, as AWAS have already testified about… My client is a father. A father to a child. He is accused of a criminal offence and his wife has been similarly accused and granted bail.”

There was no reason to discriminate between the mother and father with regards to bail in these circumstances, he said, asking the court not to break up the family.

The prosecution retorted that the mother had been granted bail to care for her daughter and that this did not constitute discrimination.

Farrugia replied that the child needed both its parents and that there was no reason for the man to be discriminated against by imposing different conditions to the mother.

The court, however, rejected the request for bail, stating that it was not sufficiently assured that the defendant “would be able to satisfy the conditions that would otherwise have been imposed, amongst them not to abscond from the Maltese islands.” The man was remanded in custody.