In the wake of the spring hunting referendum result, the spokeswoman for the Yes campaign, Kathleen Grima, asserted that she would like to see the Referenda Act amended so that any future referendum could be challenged in court on the basis of minority rights.

What the hunting lobby wants is not to defend some non-existent minority ‘right’ but to ensure that the abrogative referendum cannot be used by the people to remove privileges deemed unjust by the majority.

I cannot imagine any possible reform which would not affect some group or another, which would thus form a ‘minority’. Beneath the excuse of minority rights there is an anti-democratic agenda that wants to threaten the liberty of the Maltese people by depriving them of their democratic right to intervene in a direct way in the political process.

In this they may find the complicity of several politicians who see the abrogative referendum as an obstacle to acting in a despotic manner.

Grima’s argument has already been rejected by the Constitutional Court, confirming it has no validity. In fact, when hunting groups tried to stop the referendum from taking place, the court said: “It is true that the right of the majority [to rule] should take place with respect towards the right of minorities, however, such respect is not achieved by not allowing the people to make themselves heard in a referendum”.

I urge the people to keep their eyes open for any moves in this direction and to remember that the abrogative referendum is an important checks-and-balances tool against any system that runs out of control.

Truly, the hunters are not the only ones who would gain from destroying the Referenda Act. There are also those who prefer secret back-room deals against the public interest, which only play out once the elections are over and about which nothing can be subsequently done.