The process followed by the Coalition for the Abolition of Spring Hunting was legal, the government has said in its submission to the Constitutional Court in response to hunters’ objections to a spring hunting referendum.

In its reply filed last week, the government dismissed the hunters’ objections filed in court by lawyer Kathleen Grima.

Her 22-page submission made last month on behalf of the hunters’ federation (FKNK) requested the court to reject the petition and stop the abrogative referendum.

One of the objections questioned why the Electoral Commission did not engage a calligraphy expert to determine whether signatures were authentic. This opened up the probability that the number of collected signatures did not conform to the legal requirement, the federation added, urging the court not to ignore this doubt.

But in its reply filed in court, based on the advice of the Office of the Attorney General, the government said the process of verifying the signatures had been done correctly, confirming it was legal.

Objections of the hunters are illogical and legally baseless

The Coalition to Abolish Spring Hunting collected more than 41,000 signatures calling for the holding of an abrogative referendum to strike out the 2010 legal notice that makes spring hunting possible. The Government went so far as to question the validity of the hunters’ own objections in court, stating that their submission could not have been made on behalf of the organisation but according to law could only be filed in a person’s name.

It also contested the argument made by the hunters’ federation that a referendum to abolish spring hunting cannot be held because it would breach Malta’s EU Treaty obligations.

FKNK had argued the referendum sought to abolish a legal notice that implemented provisions of the Birds Directive, which Malta was obliged to transpose as a result of EU accession. But the government questioned whether spring hunting laws fell in the realm of domestic matters or treaty obligations.

The coalition also submitted their replies to the hunters’ objections to the referendum in the Constitutional Court last week, saying they were “illogical and legally baseless”.

“It is ironic, and with all due respect incorrect, not to say perverse, that the [hunters] imply that if the referendum is allowed to go through it would be in breach of democracy when the referendum is the strongest expression of democracy,” the coalition said.

It said the hunting lobby’s interpretation of the Birds Directive was “diametrically opposed to what the interpretation should be”.