A court has turned down a request by the Merchants Street Business Community Association to stop the relocation of the monti to a higher part of Merchants Street.
Last December, the court provisionally upheld an application for a warrant of prohibitory injunction against the Economy Minister, asking the court prevent him from relocating the flea market to the area between Melita Street and Old Theatre Street.
The association’s president, Anthony Camilleri, testified that last August principal permanent secretary Mario Cutajar told him that it was the government’s intention to relocate the market further up Merchants Street.
Mr Cutajar asked him to keep this information to himself, because if word got out, the monti hawkers would turn against him.
However, despite Mr Camilleri not being furnished with further information, he later learned through the grapevine that the date of the relocation had been set for December 14.
A meeting had been set with Economy Minister Chris Cardona but was instead attended by former One TV newscaster Jonathan Attard after the minister was delayed in Parliament.
Mr Camilleri testified that Mr Attard clearly stated that the monti would be relocating further up Merchants Street and went on to give its exact measurements.
However Mr Camilleri ob-jected, saying that he didn’t care about the measurements and insisting that he was only interested in ensuring that the monti would not be relocated up Merchants Street because the Prime Minister had promised him that the move would not happen.
The move, Mr Camilleri argued, would negatively impact 72 shop owners, because the flea market would lower the street’s prestige. There were five franchises in the street and the flea market’s relocation could prompt them to withdraw from the country.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Joseph Zammit McKeon noted that ministry consultant Alexander Farrugia had confirmed under oath that no decision on the relocation plan had been taken yet and that negotiations between all interested parties were still under way.
He said that for a warrant of prohibitory injunction to be issued, certain legal requirements had to be fulfilled. The court had to be satisfied that the warrant was necessary to protect a right.
A warrant could only be issued against the government if the government itself, through its representatives, confirmed on oath that the action to be prevented was in fact going to take place.
Mr Farrugia, the court said, had to bear the responsibility for his declaration under oath, and this responsibility extended to the minister, who had delegated Mr Farrugia to act on his behalf.