Photos of accountant Joe Sammut walking into court clutching a book about the assassination that sparked off World War I have given rise to questions about whether he was making a statement.

The book caught the attention of journalists and photographers alike as Mr Sammut walked into court on Tuesday, escorted by two police officers, holding the publication against his chest as if wanting to ensure its cover appeared prominently.

Mr Sammut, 58, is accused of helping Libyans set up companies in Malta to obtain residency permits using forged documents and fraudulent means.

Entitled The Assassination of the Archduke, the book he was holding is a historic account of the life and murder of Austro-Hungarian royal Franz Ferdinand. His death has widely been accepted as one of the main triggers leading to the Great War.

Repeated attempts to contact Mr Sammut about his choice of literature proved unsuccessful by the time of writing.

Legal Anthropologist David Zammit said the book could suggest that Dr Sammut was trying to send a message to an “external audience” separate and distinct from the people present in the court room.

“My impression is that, since no jury was present, he was almost certainly aiming to send a message to an external audience, via the media, which were present,” he said.

Dr Zammit said accused parties often used court proceedings to send out a message.

“When you are the accused in a criminal trial or even a litigant in a civil case, you can use the opportunity to dramatically perform the kind of person you are,” he said.

Asked why someone would do this, Dr Zammit said that in a context where one’s actions and motivations were being investigated, there was a strong incentive to try to communicate one’s personal truth. Social thinkers, such as Michel Foucault, had often written about the opportunity public executions gave for public statements, and how this could make it possible to win public sympathy.

“You can convert your trial into an opportunity to make a statement about who you are.”

If the book was indeed some form of public statement, it would not be a first in Malta.

You can turn your trial into an opportunity to make a statement

Law Reform Commissioner Franco Debono raised eyebrows when he was photographed carrying a book into Parliament in 2012 for a debate on a vote of no-confidence in the Gonzi administration.

His choice, The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying by Sogyal Rinpoche, is widely regarded as one of the most complete and authoritative presentations of Tibetan Buddhist teachings.

The synopsis describes the book as “an introduction to the practice of meditation as well as to the concepts of karma and rebirth and to the trials and rewards of one’s path.”

The title was displayed by Dr Debono for all to see.

Asked why he had chosen that book, Dr Debono said: “It speaks of altruism, of respect and compassion for others. It gives me some serenity and I encourage everyone to read it.”

Popular television presenter Peppi Azzopardi also famously used a book to pass on a message. He carried Indian revolutionary Mahatma Gandhi’s autobiography after he had been arrested following the heated 1981 election.

Mr Azzopardi said he had been reading the book until he was put in a filthy cell for “speaking out” against political violence under the Labour government.

The Constitutional Court ruled Mr Azzopardi’s arrest to have been unlawful and he subsequently held a press conference carrying nothing but the Gandhi autobiography.

“I used to refer to that book and keep it as a symbol of passive resistance. This is what Gandhi preached and it is what I still believe in today. A symbol can be a strong way to pass on such a message,” he said.

So does Mr Sammut have a message to convey? That cannot be known because he did not answer his mobile phone yesterday. What is certain is that his choice of literature combines royal biography with political assassination. Against a backdrop of glittering privilege and an Imperial Court, it examines the Serbian conspiracy that led to the archduke’s killing.

It also discusses the hidden powers believed to be behind the assassination, who may have had “suspicious motives”.