Lawyers’ explanation on abrogative referendum ‘misleading’, hunters claim

An explanation by lawyers including by the former judge of the European Court of Human Rights, Giovanni Bonello, on the workings of an abrogative referendum, was described as “purposely misleading” by the hunters.

The group of 12 lawyers explained that the only hobby subject of a derogation from EU regulations was spring hunting and this referendum will only decide whether or not that derogation should be removed from the statute book.

But according to the FKNK, this too was subject to interpretation: “Thousands of Maltese lawyers contest one another with regards the interpretation of some legislation or other and also appeal judiciary decrees. Such announcements only serve to strengthen the FKNK's belief and further its determination to campaign in favour of the interests, rights and legal privileges of minority groups in the Maltese society.”

The 12 lawyers explained that the referendum will not open the door to restrictions to other hobbies. According to Kaccaturi San Ubertu (KSU) this was “purposely misleading”.

“The fact that a minority of 10,000 of the Maltese public that practice spring hunting could see their legal activity banned through the collecting of 40,000 signatures that oppose it is proof enough that any other minority activity could suffer the same fate at the hands of a majority. A petition to parliament, private member’s bill or a referendum which might bear the signatures of a substantial part of the electorate that might oppose any other regulated minority activity, hobby or pastime could lead to it being rescinded.”

KSU said that by means of an abrogative referendum, one or more provisions of an enactment may not continue in force. These include “any Act of Parliament and any Act passed by the Legislature of Malta and includes any Code, Ordinance, Proclamation, Order, Rule,Regulation, Bye-law, Notice or other instrument having the force of law in Malta.”

While hunting is regulated by law, spring hunting is only allowed by a derogation that can be subject to an abrogative referendum.

A completely different type of referendum – a resolutive referendum, which would have to be proposed by Parliament - would be required to abolish hunting altogether. A petition – such as the one that led to the abrogative referendum on spring hunting – cannot prompt a resolutive referendum.