Lawyers demand answers as prison surveillance claims raise concerns over fair trial rights<\/p>\n
The Chamber of Advocates on Monday called for an independent inquiry into allegations that listening devices were installed in prison meeting rooms used by inmates, warning that uncertainty over confidential lawyer-client communications strikes at the very foundations of the justice system.<\/p>\n
Speaking at a press conference on Monday, Chamber president Peter Fenech said the organisation possesses testimony from two witnesses indicating that the Malta Security Service installed listening devices in rooms at the Corradino Correctional Facility reserved for high-risk inmates.<\/p>\n
He said the testimony suggested that at least one room, and possibly more, had been equipped with eavesdropping devices.<\/p>\n
The Chamber’s concern, however, extends beyond whether conversations were actually intercepted. According to Fenech, the more fundamental issue is whether inmates and their lawyers can be certain their discussions remain confidential.<\/p>\n
“The issue is not whether someone actually listened. The issue is whether a person can be certain that nobody is listening,” he said.<\/p>\n
The chamber is requesting an internal inquiry led by a member of the judiciary to establish the facts, determine whether any surveillance equipment remains in place, and recommend safeguards to protect legal professional privilege. Fenech pointed out that the Home Affairs Ministry had launched an inquiry into internet access at the prison and questioned why no similar investigation had yet been announced on this serious matter.<\/p>\n
The allegations have prompted an unprecedented protest by the legal profession. Lawyers were instructed not to attend court sittings on Monday, a directive that Fenech said was respected by the overwhelming majority of practitioners.<\/p>\n
The Chamber insists the action was not intended to benefit any particular defendant or ongoing court case, but rather to defend what it describes as a fundamental human right.<\/p>\n
“It is a client’s human right to engage in confidential talks with their lawyer,” Fenech said. “This privileged communication is sacrosanct.”<\/p>\n
According to the chamber, the information first reached it in early June through one of its members. Subsequent testimony provided behind closed doors reinforced concerns that surveillance had taken place in areas where inmates meet visitors. The prison does not have dedicated facilities exclusively reserved for lawyer-client consultations.<\/p>\n
Fenech said the chamber initially sought clarification privately, writing to both the home affairs minister and the justice minister before taking public action. However, the responses received did not sufficiently address its concerns.<\/p>\n
The State Advocate has denied any systemic use of eavesdropping devices in prison, arguing that legal remedies already exist for anyone who believes their rights have been breached.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, the chamber maintains that the issue warrants independent scrutiny. Fenech noted that while testimony suggested devices may have been switched off when lawyers met their clients, this alone was not enough to restore confidence.<\/p>\n
The chamber’s representatives have since held what Fenech described as a positive meeting with Justice Minister Clifton Grima and said they remain willing to engage with government officials to discuss the matter further.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n