A man sentenced to 13 years behind bars for conspiring to import cocaine has filed an appeal, claiming the jury's star witness lied under oath and that the guilty verdict had been reached on the basis of assumptions.

Last month, Stephen Egbo, 39, of San Ġwann, was found guilty by 7 votes to 2 of conspiring to import cocaine from the Netherlands back in 2010. He was handed a 13-year sentence and €30,000 fine. 

Mr Egbo had been arrested following a sting operation put into place after police arrested drug mule Attila Somiyai as he arrived in Malta.  

According to Mr Somiyai, Mr Egbo was due to pick up more than 500g of cocaine from him. Mr Somiyai was jailed for nine years in 2014 for his part in the operation and received a reduced sentence for cooperating with police. 

Lawyers for Mr Egbo have filed an appeal arguing that Mr Somylai was lying and that all other evidence indicated that Mr Egbo was innocent. 

Mr Somylai had told the court that he had recognised Mr Egbo by his dreadlocks. But according to the defendant's lawyers, Mr Egbo did not have dreadlocks at the time and only grew them later, before the trial by jury.

Lawyers have also noted that their client was not carrying money to pay Mr Somylai and no money was found at his home, despite the drug mule telling police that he had been paid immediately for a previous drug delivery. 

Defence lawyers have also said that a police phone Mr Somylai allegedly used was never exhibited in court and no recordings of the call had been made.

There was no evidence that the two men had ever spoken over the phone, they said, nor was there any evidence of Mr Egbo receiving any calls from the Netherlands between 5pm and 6pm on the evening he was arrested.  

When Mr Somylai had spoken to his foreign contact over the phone, he had done so in Hungarian while police had no translator present, Mr Egbo'd lawyers have argued, saying this was a "massive defect" in the sting operation. 

The two lawyers said that everything in this case pointed to jurors having deemed Mr Egbo guilty by assumption, rather than by weighing the facts of the case.