Explosives plot: Court to rule on Jomic Calleja request for disclosure of police intelligence

A court looks set to refuse a request for the disclosure of intelligence received by the police in the case against Jomic Calleja, who was arrested after allegedly attempting to illegally import explosives he purchased on the dark web, together with radioactive polonium.

Calleja was arrested in 2020 after the police carried out a controlled delivery of a package that had been intercepted and found to contain the military-grade explosive C4. The interception was the result of cooperation between foreign and local intelligence services. It was also revealed that Calleja had also discussed importing the poisonous radioactive substance polonium, which has been used in the past to poison targets of assassination attempts, famously in the case of Alexander Litvinenko.

When the case was called this morning, Magistrate Donatella Frendo Dimech noted that Calleja’s lawyer, Benjamin Valenzia had filed an application asking the court to order the police to disclose the intelligence they had about the accused, citing the principle of equality of arms. But this was opposed by the prosecution, with the court also pointing out that if it was disclosed, it would no longer be intelligence.

The court explained that there were treaties governing the use of intelligence and that revealing intelligence would lead to serious negative repercussions on the Maltese police. Inspector Zammit added that in any case, the law allowed the prosecution to use anonymous information. 

After arguing with the court and the prosecution on the matter of intelligence, Valenzia dictated a note reserving the right to ask questions in cross-examination on where the intelligence leading to Calleja’s arrest came from and what it consisted of. He also reserved the right to seek Constitutional remedies.

The court reminded the defence that the cross-examination was to be made on the contents of the examination-in-chief and made specific reference to the testimony in the acts to guide him.

Inspector Omar Zammit was summoned to the stand to be cross-examined by the defence in today’s sitting. Valenzia asked the inspector how a former Express Trailers employee, Matthew Borg, had been suspected of having insider information relating to the shipment. “How did you arrive at him and not anyone else from Express Trailers?” asked the lawyer.

“From the investigations we carried out at the time, we arrived at Matthew Borg,”  replied the inspector.

Valenzia then asked about a second package, which had been addressed to a different person, but the inspector said that he had only been involved in the investigation regarding the package involved in the controlled delivery.

The lawyer also asked why the police had carried out the arrest at the particular time of day that they did. “I didn’t carry out the arrest, but the information we received was that Jomic had drugs on his person, which turned out to be true,” Zammit replied.

A former police sergeant was next to be cross-examined. He was part of the team that worked on Calleja’s case.

Police had suspected that an insider, Matthew Borg, had been passing on information from Express trailers. Asked how they had arrived at Borg, he said that only Borg had access to the information.  “By elimination, we identified Borg.

The witness explained why Calleja had been arrested. “Superintendent [George] Cremona, at the time my superior, had informed us that there was a likelihood of a drug deal happening there. We intercepted Calleja together with his wife and had searched them both. We found a substance which appeared to be marijuana.”

He said he hadn’t been told exactly what they were looking for. “Substances or illegal items,” was what he had been ordered to search the subjects for, he said.

Asked how the police had tracked the movements of the package, he said that it had been fitted with a tracking device and its movements had also been shadowed by officers on the ground.

The cross-examination was suspended, with Valenzia telling the court that he needed to refer to the acts of the case, saying that there could be relevant information for the exoneration of the accused.

“Let me make your life easier,” replied the magistrate. “Intelligence is not going to be found in the acts. The fact that someone told the police something is not evidence, the evidence is what the police discovered.”

Valenzia insisted on his request to see the intelligence picture which led to his client being investigated. The court said it would issue a decree on the subject later today. “But God forbid that the police don’t act on the anonymous information they receive,” remarked the magistrate.

“I don’t have an inkling on what the police might know,” protested Valenzia. “Tough luck” replied the court.

 “It is almost insulting that the defence is asking for this,” Inspector Zammit added.

Valenzia informed the court that the defence would be considering constitutional action, but the magistrate replied that she would not be suspending proceedings until that case was decided if he did. The request for intelligence was “not only frivolous but vexatious,” she added.
The case continues next month.

Inspector Omar Zammit and Jeffrey Cutajar are prosecuting.