Electors can ask for a law to be abolished but it is a long road to an abrogative referendum. Kurt Sansone explains the steps involved in the legal process.

If it happens, the referendum championed by the Coalition Against Spring Hunting will be markedly different from the six referenda held so far.

A referendum to abolish spring hunting will be the first in 150 years to have been prompted by electors and the only one to cancel a law.

While the proposed spring hunting referendum is of an abrogative nature, the previous six, including the divorce referendum two years ago, were used by governments to consult electors.

Technically speaking, governments are not bound by the result of a consultative referendum and the repercussions of failing to respect the outcome are political.

A regional referendum in Gozo in 1973 had asked Gozitans whether they agreed with the removal of the Gozo Civic Council but it was still a consultative poll.

An abrogative referendum is a different kettle of fish because it is prompted by electors who want to repeal a specific law or parts of it, a regulation or bylaw.

If the referendum is held and a majority approve, the Government will have no choice because the law will immediately be struck off the statute books.

The coalition made up of 11 groups, including Alternattiva Demokratika, Birdlife and Din l-Art Ħelwa, wants to cancel a three-year-old legal notice that sets out the rules under which the Government can open a spring hunting season for turtle dove and quail.

But getting there is a long road. For the referendum to be held the coalition has to collect the signatures of no less than 10 per cent of eligible voters.

Based on the March electoral register this equates to more than 33,000 signatures, which is no mean feat when one considers that an anti-hunting petition collected by Alternattiva Demokratikain the early 1990s had managed some 13,000 signatures.

The coalition has started to collect signatures but tech-savvy supporters will be disappointed to know that the petition cannot be filled online.

The law clearly states that the petition will have to include the ID card number, home address, voting district and the signature of the individual signing up.

There is no timeframe set at law for the collection of signatures but when the number is reached the Electoral Commission will then vet the signatories to make sure they are valid.

After this exercise – which should take 15 days – the onus shifts to the constitutional court where opponents of the referendum have three months to register objections.

It is only at this stage that Gov-ernment, through the Attorney General, may try to stop thereferendum but the objection will have to be of a procedural nature. Any registered voter can also object.

The grounds for objection are limited: objectors can argue that the 10 per cent benchmark of signatories was not reached; or that if parts of a law are repealed it will render the law incompatible with the Constitution and the European Convention Act.

The last point is the more important one because an abrogative referendum cannot be held to cancel certain laws that include the Constitution, the European Convention Act, the General Elections Act, any fiscal legislation and obligations that emanate from international treaties. However, the legal notice the coalition wants to abolish does not fall within the prohibited parameters because it will not alter the European Convention Act.

The referendum proponents will then have a month to reply to objections and the court will have one month to set a hearing if it deems it necessary. A decision will be given a month later and if the court rules that the referendum can go ahead the President will set a date for the poll – not less than three months and not later than six from the decree.

At this stage the referendum may still not be held if the law electors want to be abolished is repealed or changed before polling day. The referendum may also be cancelled if Parliament is dissolved before the President fixes a date for the poll. For the referendum result to be valid voter turnout will have to surpass the 50 per cent mark. If the coalition’s attempt to abolish spring hunting is scuppered by electors the law will not be repealed and no referendum on the subject can be held for at least two years.

Spring hunting: what’s the problem?

Hunting is allowed under national and EU laws although it is regulated by the Birds’ Directive.

There are no legal qualms about hunting during the autumn but the directive prohibits spring hunting because birds will be migrating northward towards their breeding grounds.

Member states can opt out of the prohibition for specific reasons but they will have to justify the decision each and every time with the Euro-pean Commission.

If the Commission is not satisfied with the explanation it will initiate infringement proceedings like it did against Malta between 2004 and 2008.

In Malta’s case, a European Court of Justice ruling had allowed the possibility of a limited spring hunting season because autumn was deemed to be an unsatisfactory alternative.

Spring hunting for turtle dove and quail is limited by the number of birds that can be shot and restricted to a number of days. The parameters outlining the strict conditions attached to spring hunting are found in the legal notice published three years ago.

The coalition argues that Malta is not applying the derogation correctly and insists hunters cannot be trusted to obey the strict rules attached to the spring season.

proposers Coalition against spring hunting

Signatures 10% of electors have to sign petition

Approved Constitutional Court can receive submissions against petition, will conduct a “hearing” and deliver decision

petition To abolish Legal Notice 221 of 2010 that lays down rules for a derogation on spring hunting

verification Electoral Commission verifies signatures and determines whether number has been reached

referendum To be valid at least 50 per cent + 1 of electors have to vote