Magistrate Antonio Vella ruled that although Birdlife did not have the necessary permits to handle birds, in the case before him it had acted in the animals’ best interest. Photo: Chris Sant Fournier

Leaked e-mails showed an attempt to silence Birdlife through “intimidation”, the conservationist NGO said yesterday.

Birdlife yesterday circulated what it said were copies of e-mails exchanged between it and the head of the wild birds regulation unit, Sergei Golovkin, regarding photos of protected birds shot last week and published by Birdlife.

In his e-mail, Mr Golovkin quoted legislation that forbids unauthorised people from handling protected birds. He informed the NGO that: “It does not appear to be the case that Birdlife has any authorisation to possess, control or keep any specimen of any bird, whether alive or dead.”

Mr Golovkin advised the NGO to abide by the law.

Two months ago, Magistrate Antonio Vella ruled that although Birdlife did not have the necessary permits to handle birds, in the case before him it was acting in the animals’ best interest. The case was about a number of Birdlife members who were photographed holding protected species.

Birdlife conservation officer Nicholas Barbara said yesterday the legal provisions quoted by Mr Golovkin included an exemption “where such possession is required for the rehabilitation, veterinary or other treatment or culling of the specimen on veterinary grounds”.

His behaviour is simply an abuse of power and not what the public expects from the head of a government unit

Furthermore, he noted, the government had recently provided the organisation with a building to use as a rehabilitation centre for shot and injured birds.

Mr Barbara said the e-mail was a clear attempt by Mr Golovkin to prevent Birdlife from rescuing shot birds and raising awareness about the impact of illegal hunting.

“Not only is his claim invalid but his behaviour is simply an abuse of power and not what the public expects from the head of a government unit which should be working in favour of exposing the illegal killing of birds,” he said.

“Exposing the illegal hunting of birds, which the authorities should be curtailing rather than concealing, is something we will continue to do regardless,” he said.

In a statement later, the wild birds regulation unit insisted that there was no intimidation at all, adding the law prohibited possession of any birds, or their culling, unless authorised under the conservation of wild birds regulations.

Birdlife was free to exercise its functions and to raise awareness about illegal hunting as it deemed fit, however, its actions must not go beyond the provisions of the law, which applied to everyone, the unit added.