Melvin Theuma had already been promised a presidential pardon before police arrested Yorgen Fenech and heard his account of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder, the businessman’s defence told jurors on Friday.

The claim triggered a dispute between defence and prosecution lawyers during the final stages of their closing submissions, forcing Judge Edwina Grima to send the jury out of the courtroom.

Defence lawyer Charles Mercieca argued that recordings in evidence and an official document dated 19 November 2019 supported the claim that Theuma had been assured a pardon if the information he provided was fully disclosed and corroborated.

Fenech was arrested aboard his yacht the following day.

The prosecution rejected the suggestion that Theuma had already been granted a pardon before investigators obtained Fenech’s version. Prosecutor Anthony Vella pointed out that the formal presidential pardon was only granted on 25 November.

The defence clarified that it was referring to the promise of a pardon rather than the date on which it was formally granted.

Mercieca argued that investigators had accepted Theuma’s account and moved towards securing his pardon without sufficiently testing his claims or first hearing Fenech’s version.

The prosecution said the assurance was intended to obtain Theuma’s cooperation and encourage him to disclose everything he knew. Giannella de Marco, also appearing for Fenech, replied that this was precisely the defence’s point.

Prosecutors also argued that if jurors were asked to consider the circumstances surrounding Theuma’s pardon, they should also be informed about Fenech’s own request for one.

Grima adjourned the sitting and said she would listen to a recording of Mercieca’s remarks before deciding how to address the dispute.

The clash followed the prosecution’s final appeal for jurors to find Fenech guilty of complicity in Caruana Galizia’s murder and criminal association.

Vella argued that Fenech commissioned and financed the assassination through Theuma, paying €150,000 for the murder and later providing further funds that reached the convicted killers.

He told jurors that complicity did not require Fenech to have physically carried out the killing. A person who orders, instructs or pays others to commit a crime can bear the same criminal responsibility as those who execute it, he said.

The prosecutor insisted that jurors must focus on whether the case against Fenech had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, irrespective of whether other people may also have been involved. He said the magisterial inquiry remained open to investigate other possible participants.

Mercieca countered that Theuma’s version was “full of holes”, particularly his account of a meeting with Fenech before the 2017 election. The defence presented travel records and a photograph which it said showed Fenech was abroad during the period indicated by Theuma.

The defence also returned to alleged failures to investigate Keith Schembri, including the handling of a search at his Castille office.

Mercieca argued that it would be unsafe to convict Fenech while the investigation remained open and the possibility of new evidence had been acknowledged.

“This is not Ludo or Snakes and Ladders,” he told jurors. “You are deciding on a person.”