The prosecution has asked the court to send a formal request to the authorities in Uzbekistan – a ‘letter rogatory’ – which might shed further light upon the identity of Kristjan Zekic alias Adhamjon Niyasov, who has spent the past eight months in jail.

The man, currently facing proceedings for procuring and making use of a false passport, is also undergoing separate criminal action over his alleged involvement in helping Andrew Mangion to hide the body of murder victim Eleanor Mangion Walker inside a disused Qormi warehouse in July 2016.

Inspector Keith Arnaud, handling the prosecution in the passport-related case, today requested court authorisation to ask for further evidence from Uzbekistan, the alleged country of nationality of the accused.

However, this request prompted strong objections on the part of the defence team, who pointed out that the law did not provide for such a source of evidence before the Magistrates’ Courts as a court of criminal judicature presiding over summary proceedings.

Stephen Tonna Lowell, appearing as defence counsel alongside Giannella DeMarco, argued that an amendment to the criminal code in 2014 had specified the courts where such ‘letters rogatory’ could be requested. Summary proceedings were not one of them, Dr Tonna Lowell continued, adding that had the law intended the amendment to apply to summary proceedings, it would have said so.

In reply to a query by the court, Inspector Arnaud explained that originally the prosecution had intended to rely on data collected from the authorities in Slovenia. However, as the case proceeded, it realised that further information from Uzbekistan was necessary.

“In the meantime, eight months down the line, our client is still in prison, in spite of having been granted bail in separate proceedings,” Dr DeMarco was quick to point out.

Magistrate Aaron Bugeja, presiding over the case, observed that this was a factual rather than a legal issue. While acknowledging that the prosecution controls its evidence, it would have been much better if the prosecution had requested such ‘letters rogatory’ at the start of the proceedings.

The court granted the prosecution one week to present its written submissions justifying its request, with a further week to the defence to make its written reply so that the court would be able to decide upon the issue by the next sitting scheduled in October.