Bribery claim in Farrugia jury was extortion attempt, court says

Man’s claims to have been offered bribe to lie during Noel Farrugia ‘il-Giza’ jury, was actually extortion attempt

A court of magistrates has cleared a man of attempting to bribe a witness to lie on oath during his brother’s trial for attempted murder, holding that it had been the witness who had tried to extort money from the accused’s family.

Mario Farrugia had been accused of attempting to pervert the course of justice with regards to his brother, Noel Farrugia known as il-Giza, who had been due to go on trial in December 2014, for the 2010 stabbing of his drug buddy, a Libyan by the name of Omar Faiz El Sallak.

Sallak had informed the police that he had been approached by Noel Farrugia’s brother Mario – serving a prison sentence at the time – who had offered a sum of money to change his version of events during Noel Farrugia’s trial. Sallak also confirmed this version on oath.

The Libyan claimed to have initially been offered €5,000 for this, but his repeated refusals had driven the offer up to €30,000.

The messages had supposedly been passed from Mario Farrugia by means of a middleman called Walid Laouini, who told the court that Mario had approached him and asked whether he could intercede for Noel with Sallak. The Libyan had refused to forgive the man who stabbed him, however.

But Mario Farrugia consistently denied sending word to Elsallak, or asking him to change his version of events. To the contrary, he said it had been the Libyan who had sent an intermediary – a certain Willy Walid – to Farrugia to request €15,000, in exchange for which he would drop the charges. Walid had demanded that the accused call up his mother and ask her to hand the cash to the middleman, Farrugia had testified.

The accused said that he had indeed called up his mother, but only to warn her about what had been demanded. He asked her to inform Edward Gatt, his lawyer. The woman had done so, and had been arrested on suspicion of bribery some days later as a result, only to later be released without charge.

Magistrate Josette Demicoli felt that the accused’s version of events was “far more credible and was truthful.” She held that it had been clear that rather than the accused trying to bribe the witness, it had been the witness who was trying to extort money from the accused’s family. The accused had done the right thing when he instructed his mother to inform his lawyers, said the court as, in so doing, she had avoided causing further trouble to befall her and her children.