Man jailed for 13 years after trial by jury files appeal based on ‘credibility’ of star witness

Lawyers have filed an appeal on behalf of Stephen Egbo, a Nigerian man fighting a 13-year jail sentence and a €30,000 fine handed down after he was found guilty of conspiring to import cocaine from the Netherlands in 2010.

The defence team is making the case that the jury’s lead witness is not credible, having pointed out a number of consistencies in his testimony over various sittings.

In July, Egbo, 39, from San Ġwann, was found guilty of the charges brought against him after a jury returned a 7-2 verdict.

The initial case dates back to November 2010, when Attila Somlyai, a Romanian national, was intercepted by the police when arriving in Malta from Düsseldorf. After being taken to Mater Dei Hospital and examined, he was found to have hidden 60 cocaine capsules, worth some €44,000, in his stomach.

The Romanian is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence and is key witness for the prosecution, which is arguing that the drugs brought down by Somlyai were intended for Egbo. The credibility of the witness is a crucial point for both the defence and the prosecution.

Egbo was subsequently arrested during a controlled delivery operation, and was charged with attempting to pick the drugs up from Somlyai.

Lawyers Simon Micallef Stafrace and Marc Sant, representing the appellant, are basing their arguments on the evidence presented in court, contending that they showed no involvement, on Egbo’s part, in any drug conspiracy. It was Somlyai who pointed his fingers at Egbo, and without the former’s testimony, there would be absolutely nothing tying Egbo to the case, the lawyers argued.

Micallef Stafrace and Sant reminded the court that, in addition to the several inaccuracies and misguided statements made by the Romanian national, he negotiated a lesser prison sentence through his cooperation and therefore had a vested interest.

They highlighted the illogic of Egbo being Somlyai's contact and the former allegedly planning to meet the latter to pay for the drugs, when no money was found on Egbo or at his home. This, the lawyers argued, proves that the appellant was not the contact person for the delivery.

Another shortcoming was the fact that recordings of a call allegedly made by Somlyai to Egbo on a police phone had never exhibited in court; therefore, the presiding judge would just have to take the witness’ word for it.

Worse still, lawyers for the appellant contend, the Romanian had spoken to his foreign contact on the police phone in Hungarian, and no translator was presented to ascertain what had been said in the call. The defence lawyers stressed what a big shortcoming this was.

Inaccuracies were then pointed out in the description of Egbo’s physical features at the time of the controlled delivery.

Lawyers highlighted the illogic of Egbo being Somlyai's contact and the former allegedly planning to meet the latter to pay for the drugs, when no money was found on Egbo or at his home. This, the lawyers argued, proves that the appellant was not the contact person for the delivery