Malta court awards €5,000 to terrorism suspect held unlawfully by immigration
A court ruled that Ajil Al Muhsen's detention by immigration authorities breached his right to liberty. He was awarded €5,000 in moral damages.
Terrorism suspect wins €5,000 after court finds detention unlawful
A man facing terrorism-related criminal proceedings in Malta has been awarded €5,000 in compensation after a court found that his detention by immigration authorities violated his fundamental right to liberty, Times of Malta reports.
Ajil Al Muhsen, who has also sought international protection in Malta, was detained in November 2025 on the grounds that he posed a threat to national security and might flee the country. The First Hall of the Civil Court, sitting in its constitutional jurisdiction, ruled on Thursday that the authorities had failed to establish sufficient grounds to justify that detention.
Mr Justice Henri Mizzi found that the decision rested largely on speculative concerns, including intelligence suggesting Al Muhsen might harm himself if returned to prison. The court concluded that authorities had neither demonstrated a genuine and present security threat nor adequately considered less restrictive alternatives.
Background and criminal proceedings
Al Muhsen entered Malta on a false German passport and applied for international protection in 2020. Criminal proceedings involving terrorism-related offences were subsequently instituted against him, though he was granted bail in March 2024.
On 31 October 2025, the International Protection Agency rejected his application for protection. He lodged an appeal, retaining his status as an applicant pending its outcome. On 17 November, the Principal Immigration Officer ordered his detention, citing a risk of absconding and concerns over national security and public order. The Immigration Appeals Board upheld the order a week later, finding that credible intelligence supported the authorities' concerns.
Al Muhsen then challenged his detention before the Magistrates' Court without success and subsequently instituted constitutional proceedings. An interim court order issued on 22 December 2025 secured his release; the Constitutional Court upheld that order in February.
Intelligence found insufficient
During the proceedings, Inspector Zachary Zammit of the police Counter-Terrorism Unit testified that confidential intelligence indicated Al Muhsen had told another person he was considering suicide if sent back to prison. Investigators feared, in light of his pending charges and a sentence handed down in a comparable case, that he might pose a danger to himself or others. Police also raised the possibility of a suicide attack, arguing it could not be ruled out.
Justice Mizzi rejected that reasoning. The inability to exclude a possibility, the court held, did not constitute evidence of an actual threat. The intelligence identified no specific plan, preparation or violent conduct indicating a genuine and present danger. The court further stressed that pending criminal charges against Al Muhsen, and the conviction of a separate individual, could not substitute for evidence of his own conduct.
Evidence was also heard that Al Muhsen had allegedly remarked outside a courtroom that he could reach Syria within two hours if he wanted to. The court noted, however, that the comment had been made after the detention order was issued and could not retrospectively justify it.
No psychiatric assessment conducted
Consultant psychiatrist Mark Xuereb, who had examined Al Muhsen regularly over several months, testified that he found no evidence of psychiatric illness or an elevated risk of suicide or self-harm. He described the reported remarks as potentially reflecting frustration rather than genuine intent to harm himself.
The court noted that immigration authorities had not arranged a psychiatric assessment before ordering Al Muhsen's detention, and stressed that administrative detention on security grounds could not substitute for medical care — particularly when alternatives such as psychiatric supervision had not been considered.
No evidence of flight risk
The judge also rejected claims that Al Muhsen presented a substantial risk of absconding. Authorities produced no evidence of attempted escape, preparations to flee or breaches of bail conditions. On the contrary, evidence showed he had a fixed address, regular employment and had complied throughout with his bail conditions.
The court found that authorities had not examined whether measures such as regular reporting, monitoring or additional bail conditions could have adequately addressed their concerns. It also criticised the Immigration Appeals Board for largely adopting the authorities' reasoning without properly assessing less restrictive alternatives.
Ruling and damages
The court ruled that the 17 November detention order and the subsequent detention violated Al Muhsen's right to liberty under the Maltese Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and set the order aside.
Separate claims of inhuman or degrading treatment and violations of dignity were dismissed for lack of sufficient evidence. Since Al Muhsen had already been released under the interim order, no fresh release order was required.
Although he had established no financial losses, the court awarded him €5,000 in moral damages. The Principal Immigration Officer was ordered to pay both the compensation and court costs.
The judgment does not determine Al Muhsen's guilt or innocence in the pending criminal proceedings, nor does it affect the outcome of his international protection appeal. Lawyers Jose Herrera and Martina Herrera appeared on his behalf.
Source: Times of Malta