The main witness in a drug trafficking case may face perjury charges after he failed to identify the accused in court.

His lack of credibility led the court, presided over by magistrate Neville Camilleri, to clear the accused man of all charges.

The saga started in 2009 when police investigating the fatal overdose of a man found a mobile phone number on him. 

That number led police to the witness, who insisted that the phone number belong to Freddie Delia, a 40-year old Żabbar resident. The witness told police that Mr Delia used to supply him with heroin and cocaine for trafficking, with the pair sharing the profits between them.

Mr Delia was subsequently prosecuted for cocaine and heroin procurement.

Yet when testifying in the proceedings, the witness confirmed that he used to get the drugs from the man shown in a photo – Mr Delia – but insisted that it was not the same person seated at the dock.

On his part, Mr Delia denied all allegations, testifying that he had never sold drugs to the witness nor procured drugs for trafficking, but admitting that the two had occasionally shared drugs for their own personal use. Mr Delia confessed to having had a drug problem but he had kicked the habit since 2011.

The court observed that the case pivoted upon the credibility of the two witnesses, who had given conflicting versions.

The court found it difficult to believe the main prosecution witness, who had testified before a different magistrate, stated that he did not know the person from whom he bought drugs, landing a €100 fine for contempt of court and a warning for false testimony.

This same witness had repeated later under oath that he “had no idea of Freddie Delia and had never heard of him,” a statement which lacked credibility, the court observed, noting that there was quite a similarity between the man in the photo and the man in court.

The court observed that the prosecution had based its case on the statement of the witness who had named the accused, with no other evidence supporting the accusations against him.

No drugs or related paraphernalia had been found at Mr Delia’s residence, the court observed, noting that the prosecution had not even proved that the mobile number belonged to him.

“Should the court believe everything that was said by [the witness] when there was no further evidence in the acts of the case? The answer is: No!” declared the court.

The court therefore cleared Mr Delia of all charges and ordered the Police Commissioner to investigate the witness for possible perjury in the criminal trial.

Lawyers Franco Debono and Amadeus Cachia were defence counsel.