A star witness for the prosecution in the trial by jury of two Latin Americans said yesterday he feared for his life but would not say why.
As the trial entered its fifth day, Enriquez Martinez Burgoa, 43, a Mexican drug mule, was summoned to the witness box on Saturday but it was only yesterday, as the trial entered into its fifth day, that he spoke about his fears.
Mr Justice Michael Mallia guaranteed his protection but the witness still refused to say why he felt threatened, saying he had family in Mexico and they were at risk.
Answering a question by lawyer Nadine Sant, from the Attorney General’s Office, Mr Burgoa said lawyer Joe Mifsud, now appearing for one of the two accused in the trial, had given him advice when he himself had been prosecuted over the same case.
He denied, however, that Dr Mifsud spoke to him about the case of the two Latin Americans.
Mr Burgoa is serving a 12-year jail term for importing 1.5 kilograms of cocaine, which, according to the prosecution, were meant to be given to José Pena, 41, from Colombia and Domingo Navas, 33, of Panama in 2006, who are now facing trial.
Dr Sant also asked why his version of events matched the defence team’s line.
At this point, the judge intervened and asked the witness whether he was feeling threatened now or in the past and he said it was now that he felt threatened.
Asked if the version he had given before Magistrate Miriam Hayman was the truth, Mr Burgoa said it was and confirmed that testimony.
As Dr Mifsud rose to begin his cross examination, Dr Sant objected on grounds that Dr Mifsud had appeared for Mr Burgoa when he had been tried. This meant he could not question him on certain facts given professional secrecy, she said.
Lawyer Joe Brincat, representing Mr Pena, spoke on behalf of Dr Mifsud and said that, according to law, the right to cross examine a witness rested with the accused and not the lawyer. Furthermore, if Dr Mifsud was appearing parte civile, then he would not be able to represent his client but since that was not the case, then Dr Mifsud could represent Mr Navas.
Dr Sant replied that Dr Mifsud had breached ethics.
Mr Justice Mallia ruled the matter had already been decided and there had been no contact between Dr Mifsud and Mr Burgoa. It was something the lawyer would have to decide for himself and the court had no competence over the matter.
Mr Burgoa had testified in the Magistrates’ Court that he had been given a phone number by another man called Victor in Mexico and told to dial the number once in Malta. He was also given a document allowing him to study English while in Malta.
In Malta, he was caught carrying drugs in his hand luggage and decided to cooperate with the police. Arrangements had been made for the police to intercept the contact who was meant to receive the drugs.
The trial continues.