Daniel Muka's court plea rejected as constitutional court rules no breach of fair trial rights

The constitutional court has rejected a last-minute plea by Daniel Muka to halt his ongoing jury trial for the 2020 double murder of Christian Pandolfino and Ivor Maciejowski, ruling that his right to a fair hearing had not been breached.

On Friday, the First Hall of the Civil Court (Constitutional Jurisdiction) presided by Mr Justice Henri Mizzi rejected a constitutional application filed by Daniel Muka, who is currently on trial alongside Victor Dragomanski for the murder of Christian Pandolfino and Ivor Piotr Maciejowski in 2020.

Muka had requested an urgent interim measure to suspend his ongoing trial, claiming that his right to a fair hearing had been breached because his defence was not adequately prepared.

Muka and Dragomanski are accused of the cold-blooded murder of Pandolfino and Maciejowski, who were found shot dead in their Sliema home on 18 August 2020. The jury trial against the pair commenced on 16 June 2025.

On 17 June, Muka filed a constitutional case alleging that his fundamental right to a fair trial under the Constitution and European Convention on Human Rights had been violated. Specifically, he claimed his newly appointed lawyer, Mario Mifsud, had not been given sufficient time to prepare a defence, having only been engaged three days before trial began.

In his application, Muka stated that he had faced difficulties obtaining private legal representation due to an unresolved civil dispute with his former lawyer. He further objected to being represented by a legal aid lawyer, claiming he had consistently refused assistance from state-appointed counsel.

He argued that he should have been given a minimum of 20 days for his new private lawyer to prepare the case and pointed out that his lawyer had even requested a trial adjournment on the first day. This request was denied by the presiding criminal court.

The judge examined the application and ultimately dismissed it. The court found that the facts presented by Muka were incomplete and imprecise. While Muka had indeed experienced difficulties securing a lawyer, court records showed that he had multiple opportunities dating back to March 2024 to appoint private counsel.

Furthermore, the court noted that the trial date was officially set in April 2025, and Muka was informed in due time. The court found no proof that he was prevented from engaging a lawyer sooner, and he had declined to work with at least two different legal aid lawyers appointed to him in earlier stages of the proceedings.

The judge also observed that Muka had made no effort to submit sworn evidence to support his claim that he had tried and failed to engage other lawyers earlier.

In its ruling, the court concluded that there was no breach of Muka’s right to a fair hearing. The constitutional court ruled that Muka had had sufficient time to seek legal representation and rejected the request to suspend the ongoing jury trial. As a result, the criminal proceedings will continue as scheduled.