The Constitutional Court is tomorrow expected to announce its decision on whether a spring hunting referendum will be held this year.

If the court approves the referendum, the President will then set a date no sooner than three months and no later than six from the decision, that is between April and July.

The referendum aims to cancel a three-year-old legal notice setting out the rules under which the government can apply a derogation to open a spring hunting season for turtle dove and quail.

If it goes ahead and a majority vote for cancellation of the legal notice, the referendum will be the first in 150 years to have been prompted by electors and the only one to cancel a law.

The government will have no choice because the law will immediately be struck off the statute books. But for the result to be valid, voter turnout has to surpass the 50 per cent mark.

While the Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting is eager for a court decision that could make history, the hunters have already declared they would not lay down their arms in the battle for spring hunting.

The ‘Yes’ camp

The majority of environmental organisations as well as the Green Party joined forces to launch a petition last August to collect signatures for a referendum calling for an end to spring hunting.

The Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting consisted of Alternattiva Demokratika, Birdlife, the Coalition for Animal Rights, Din l-Art Ħelwa, Flimkien għal Ambjent Aħjar, Friends of the Earth Malta, the Gaia Foundation, Greenhouse, International Animal Rescue Malta, the Malta Organic Agriculture Movement, Moviment Graffiti, Nature Trust, the Ramblers Association Malta and Youth for the Environment.

It described the referendum as a “real chance for the people of Malta to end the cat-and-mouse game between the European Union and Malta that means spring hunting continues against the wishes of the vast majority of the Maltese population”.

It set itself an ambitious task: at least 34,000 eligible voters had to sign the petition for the referendum to be called. Against all expectations, the coalition ended up surpassing the legal requirement, equivalent to 10 per cent of the electorate, to force an abrogative referendum.

The ‘No’ camp

In response, the hunting lobby also launched a petition. Its wording made no reference to hunting and called on Parliament to change the Referenda Act so it would not be possible to hold an abrogative referendum that impinges on “the rights, privileges and interests” of minorities.

The hunters said referenda should be held on national issues that affected everyone and should not be a means to curb the rights of minorities. This attracted criticism from quarters that insisted spring hunting was not a right.

Last June, the petition containing over 104,000 signatures was handed over to Parliamentary Secretary Michael Falzon, a hunter himself, after hundreds of hunters marched down Republic Street, in Valletta. The petition had no legal value.

Road to the referendum

According to the Referenda Act, it is the Constitutional Court that will decide whether the referendum can be held after hearing submissions for and against. Objections can only be made on very limited grounds concerning a point of law.

The hunters’ federation (FKNK) spread its objections over 22 pages, asking the court to reject the petition and stop the abrogative referendum.

Objections to the referendum were also filed by the St Hubert Hunters organisation, among others.

Hunters argued among other things that a referendum to abolish spring hunting could not be held because it breached Malta’s EU Treaty obligations.

The coalition said the hunters’ arguments were “illogical and legally baseless”.

The government, in its reply after seeking the Attorney General’s advice, said the process followed by the coalition was legal and countered the arguments made by the hunting lobby.

The leader of the Opposition, Simon Busuttil, also filed his reaction saying there was no legal justification to stop the spring hunting referendum. The hunting lobby submitted that Dr Busuttil’s submissions were filed late and his feedback was disregarded.

The hunting lobby also tried to get the arguments submitted by the Electoral Commission dismissed but the court refused.

Hunters have already declared that the referendum is not the end of the road for spring hunting, adding that further legal avenues would be sought, in Europe if necessary. However, constitutional law experts have told this newspaper such avenues are extremely limited.

The media’s support

For the first time, the independent media took a joint stand to support the cause for an end to spring hunting and ensure the referendum is held in spring this year.

Times of Malta, Malta Today and The Malta Independent joined forces to support the coalition and to encourage the electorate to vote in the referendum.

The move was made after the government seemed to be dragging its feet on the matter. The media wanted to ensure the government was committed to holding the referendum and to respect citizens’ rights in a democratic country.

The key issue

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

There are no legal issues with autumn hunting but the directive prohibits spring hunting when birds migrate northward towards their breeding grounds. The scientific argument backing the directive is that species should be given the chance to breed before being killed.

Member states can opt out for specific reasons but they have to justify the decision every single time with the European Commission. If the Commission is not satisfied with the explanation, it will initiate infringement proceedings, as it did against Malta between 2004 and 2008.

In Malta’s case, the European Court of Justice had allowed the possibility of a limited spring hunting season because autumn was deemed to be an unsatisfactory alternative. The decision was based on hunting figures presented by the government, which were given to the authorities by hunters.

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 listed in a legal notice.

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.

As well as the species that can be hunted, turtle dove and quail, large numbers of internationally protected species have been targeted during the migration over Malta in spring.