Court dismisses legal challenge against refusal of Aviation Security Pass for employee convicted of cocaine possession

A court has dismissed a legal challenge filed by former Air Malta security employee Godfrey Ciangura, who sought to overturn the authorities’ refusal to grant him an Aviation Security Pass (OMAS Pass).

The court upheld a preliminary objection by the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Aviation Security Committee, ruling that Ciangura’s action was filed after the legal time limit had expired.

In a judgement delivered by Judge Henri Mizzi on 23 November 2025, the court held that Ciangura’s claim, filed in February 2012, was time-barred.

Ciangura had been denied the OMAS Pass due to a 2008 conviction for cocaine possession, in circumstances that indicated the drugs were not for personal use. Authorities deemed his criminal record a security risk for access to restricted areas at the airport.

The dispute has stretched over years. Ciangura first applied for the pass in 2009, but the refusal was confirmed several times, with a final decision issued on 28 September 2010. Although he later attempted to revive the matter with further submissions in 2011 and 2012, the court ruled these did not amount to new administrative decisions. Instead, the original refusal remained in force. In 2012, he was also urged to stop making what the authorities described as “unfounded” allegations, and invited to submit a fresh application should he meet the necessary criteria.

In his lawsuit, Ciangura argued that the refusal was unreasonable and abusive under Maltese law, and sought damages and costs. The defendants raised several preliminary objections, including the statutory limitation period under Article 469A of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure.

After examining the chronology, the court found that the refusal became final in September 2010, and that Ciangura’s repeated requests for reconsideration did not stop the legal clock. It cited the Court of Appeal’s 2019 judgment in Mizzi Antiques Ltd v Chairman of Malta Enterprise, which held that once a public authority issues a final decision, applicants must act without delay.

The court therefore upheld the objection of forfeiture due to lapse of time, dismissed Ciangura’s claims, and ordered him to pay court costs.