Seven years have passed since Amara Krumak, Abdalla Bari and Kone Tiemoko Abdul Kader – collectively known as the El Hiblu 3 – were arrested in Malta, accused of terrorism-related offenses stemming from their efforts to prevent their forced return to Libya. The case, which has drawn condemnation from human rights organizations and UN experts, highlights the complex and often perilous situation faced by migrants and refugees attempting to reach Europe. The ongoing legal battle raises fundamental questions about the responsibilities of states towards those seeking protection and the criminalization of actions taken to avoid persecution. This case concerning the El Hiblu 3 exemplifies the broader challenges within European migration policies in the Central Mediterranean.
The charges against the three young men – now facing the possibility of life imprisonment – center around an incident aboard the El Hiblu cargo ship in March 2019. At the time, all three were teenagers, aged 15, 16, and 19, who had fled Libya alongside 108 other migrants and refugees traveling on an overcrowded rubber boat. The boat, already in distress and deflating, was assisted by the El Hiblu, which had been dispatched by the European Union’s naval operation in the Mediterranean, Operation Sophia, to provide aid. However, the ship’s captain, acting under instructions from the Libyan Coast Guard, attempted to return those rescued to Libya, a country widely recognized as unsafe for migrants and refugees due to ongoing conflict, systemic human rights abuses, and widespread exploitation.
Faced with the prospect of being sent back to a situation where they risked torture, arbitrary detention, and other serious harm, those on board the El Hiblu protested. Accounts from the time describe a desperate plea to the captain, with some reportedly stating they would prefer to die than return to Libya. The ship ultimately changed course and headed towards Malta, a decision that led to the arrest of Krumak, Bari, and Abdul Kader upon arrival. Maltese authorities alleged the three had forcibly taken control of the vessel, a claim disputed by Amnesty International and other observers who maintain their actions were motivated by a legitimate fear for their lives and a desire to reach safety.
A Troubled Investigation and Prolonged Legal Battle
Over the past seven years, the legal proceedings against the El Hiblu 3 have been marked by delays, procedural concerns, and a lack of concrete evidence supporting the terrorism charges. Amnesty International has documented numerous failures by the Maltese authorities, including the failure to adequately assess the best interests of the defendants, particularly given that two were children at the time of their arrest. The three were initially detained in a high-security adult prison and subjected to adult court proceedings, violating international standards for the treatment of juvenile offenders. The investigation has been criticized for gaps and inconsistencies, including the failure to summon key witnesses, such as other individuals who were rescued alongside the El Hiblu 3.
Currently, Kone Tiemoko Abdul Kader is being held in migration detention in the United Kingdom, facing the possibility of extradition back to Malta to continue the prosecution. Amnesty International is actively opposing his extradition, arguing that it would subject him to an unfair trial and perpetuate a grave injustice. The organization contends that the charges against all three men are unfounded and that their actions should be viewed as a desperate attempt to protect themselves from harm, not as acts of terrorism.
Growing International Concern and Calls for Charges to be Dropped
The case has increasingly attracted international scrutiny, with growing calls for Malta to drop the charges against the El Hiblu 3. In January 2025, four UN independent experts issued a statement strongly criticizing Malta’s handling of the case, expressing concerns about the application of terrorism legislation to what they described as a situation driven by legitimate fear and a desire for safety. The UN experts specifically noted that the charges “do not appear to be based on violent or coercive criminal conduct” and highlighted violations of fair trial rights and the rights of the child.
The UN experts also pointed to the role of the EU’s naval operation in the Mediterranean, which initially directed the El Hiblu to coordinate with the Libyan Coast Guard for a potential return to Libya – an action that would have constituted an unlawful pushback under international law. This incident underscores the broader issue of EU cooperation with Libya, where systematic abuses against migrants and refugees continue with impunity, as reported by numerous human rights organizations. Recent reports also indicate the EU is considering extending its cooperation on migration control with the Libyan Arab Armed Forces (LAAF), a group with a documented history of involvement in war crimes and human rights violations, raising further alarm.
The Court’s Decision and Ongoing Hearings
On January 22, 2025, the Court of Appeal in Valletta ruled that Malta does have jurisdiction over the case, meaning the proceedings will continue in the Maltese criminal court. Preliminary hearings are currently ongoing, with no immediate finish in sight to the legal battle. The prolonged uncertainty has taken a significant toll on the El Hiblu 3, denying them the opportunity to rebuild their lives and pursue education or employment.
“Criminalizing people for seeking protection only prolongs their suffering and compounds their trauma,” said Dinushika Dissanayake, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for Europe. “After seven years, these young men have endured enough. Malta must drop the charges and dismiss this case.”
The case of the El Hiblu 3 serves as a stark reminder of the human cost of restrictive migration policies and the urgent need for a more humane and rights-based approach to managing migration in the Mediterranean. The next scheduled court hearing is set for April 15th, 2025, where further arguments regarding the evidence and the applicability of terrorism charges are expected to be presented.
Share your thoughts on this important case and the broader issues of migrant rights and European migration policy in the comments below.
