Mepa has defended a decision it took in 2009 to seal two apartments which were being used by groups of Muslims for prayers, arguing that they were not covered by permits allowing people to congregate.

Evidence was given in court today by Mepa representatives in a case instituted by Mouwafak Toutoungi, Tariq Razee Hidayathullah, Haroun Ali, Mouhanad Toutoungi, Elkatwy Houssein, Ahmed Hussein and Ashraf Abde Azzedine against the Commissioner of Police and the Mepa chairman.

The seven plaintiffs are requesting payment for damages, arguing that the enforcement notice issued against them was a breach of their rights under the European Convention.

The case dates to 2009, when a report was filed with Mepa about a Sliema flat where the residents were allowing other people to enter and pray.

The planning authority’s original position was that it could not intervene because the activity was private and did not require any permits.

However,  Mepa later changed its position and issued a stop and enforcement notice against two flats in Sliema and in Buġibba.

Mr Toutoungi had written to the authority, arguing that the flats could never be considered as mosques for several reasons, including their lack of minarets, places for ritual bathing and the fact that such structures should be facing Mecca.

This morning, Mr Justice Silvio Meli heard Mepa legal representative Oliver Magro testify about the permissable uses for the properties in question.

“The buildings in this case are two residential apartments in Sliema and St.Paul's Bay, both permitted for residential purposes. The two enforcement notices were issued because there had been a change in the use of the property from a place of residence to one where persons gather,” Mr Magro said.

Asked whether prayer meetings usually required permits, the witness replied they were not required in one-off events, although a police permit may be needed.

“However if a place is going to be regularly used for these activities, it needs the authority to issue a licence, irrespective of the organisation or religion.”

In earlier submissions, the plaintiffs had argued that “there was no reason to hide behind the facts ...that this is entirely based on religious discrimination.”
Nobody ever impeded groups such as the Charismatics from meeting in private residences for prayers, occasionally also with guitars and other singing, or coffee mornings organised by parish priests, they submitted.

The case continues in March.