It is a painful moment to commemorate: For seven years, the threat of life imprisonment has hung over the heads of the El Hiblu 3. For seven years, they have waited for justice.
In the mean time, UN experts call to stop the proscecution of he three for terrorism, a Maltese court found flaws in the Bill of Indictment, and NGO´s call to stop proscecution.
Seven Years Waiting for Justice: The Case Against the El Hiblu 3 Begins to Crack
In March 2019, three young men—teenagers at the time—were among a group of migrants rescued in the Mediterranean by the merchant ship El Hiblu 1. According to the prosecution, they hijacked the vessel and forced it toward Malta. The three have since been charged with serious terrorism-related offences, including acts that could lead to life sentences. But after seven years, the case against them is beginning to show cracks. I visited one of the court cases two years ago. And heard their stories.
From the beginning, the narrative presented by Maltese authorities has been contested. Human rights organisations, legal observers, and maritime experts have repeatedly pointed out inconsistencies. The central accusation—that the three orchestrated a violent hijacking—has been challenged by testimonies suggesting they merely acted as interpreters, helping to de-escalate a tense situation between frightened passengers and a reluctant crew.
The distinction is crucial. If the three young men were acting as intermediaries rather than aggressors, the legal foundation of the case shifts dramatically.
In early 2026, a Maltese court itself acknowledged issues within part of the prosecution’s case. While the proceedings continue, the court recognized flaws in elements of the terrorism-related charges. This moment marked a significant turning point: for the first time, doubts about the strength of the case were not only voiced by activists or observers, but also within the judicial process itself.
Even when flaws appear within the legal process itself, however, the system continues to move forward.
That is precisely what makes the El Hiblu 3 case so troubling. Despite mounting concerns, the prosecution has not collapsed. Instead, the case drags on, leaving the defendants in a prolonged state of legal uncertainty—a situation that, in itself, raises serious questions about proportionality and fairness.
Legal experts have pointed to broader structural issues. In complex migration-related cases, there is often a tendency to frame events through a security lens rather than a humanitarian one. Actions taken under distress at sea risk being reinterpreted as criminal intent. This creates a dangerous precedent: that those who help translate, mediate, or calm tensions during rescue operations may later be accused of leading criminal acts.
Scholars of European governance have long noted a similar pattern. Policies and interpretations developed under pressure—particularly in migration contexts—can blur legal boundaries. What begins as an attempt to assert control can evolve into a rigid framework in which nuance is lost.
The El Hiblu 3 case fits this pattern. It reflects not only the choices of Maltese prosecutors, but also a wider European struggle to reconcile migration management with fundamental rights.
The consequences for the three defendants are profound. For seven years, their lives have been defined by uncertainty. Opportunities for education, work, and stability have been overshadowed by the ongoing threat of a life sentence. The psychological toll of such prolonged proceedings cannot be ignored.
At the same time, the case has drawn increasing international attention. Members of the European Parliament, NGOs, and UN experts have called for the charges to be reassessed or dropped altogether. They argue that continuing the prosecution risks undermining the credibility of the rule of law itself.
Because ultimately, this case is about more than three individuals. It raises a fundamental question: what happens when the legal system continues to advance a case, even as its foundations begin to erode?
If justice is delayed, it is often said, it is justice denied. But the El Hiblu 3 case suggests something more complex—and more troubling. Justice may not only be delayed; it may continue on autopilot, even when its direction is no longer justified.
Seven years on, the question is no longer simply whether the three young men are guilty or innocent.
The deeper question is whether the system prosecuting them is still capable of correcting itself.