This is what the separation of powers means: an example of how the court can over-rule the government
A court of law has ruled that the people who built shacks – heaven knows why the report in the press refers to “building caravans” – at Little Armier have absolutely no legal title to the land and cannot be given that legal title.
The last two Nationalist governments had tried to reach some kind of agreement with those who built and used the shacks (which was absolutely wrong, as imagine if we all went about building rooms on the coast on land that we don’t own) but the court judgement is very clear on the matter. See the link below.
This, of course, leaves Prime Minister Muscat in a very difficult position. Judging by what he said here, he is hopeful the shack-users will appeal, and that the appeal will drag out long enough so that it won’t have to be his bulldozers that go in and raze the mess to the ground.
16 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130628/local/armier.475762
Are you sure that he will send “his bulldozers to raze the mess to the ground”?
He has an agreement with them that predates the election. I’d like to see how he’s going to wriggle out of that one now.
He will invoke the Mintoff doctrine, and transfer the Appeal Court judges if he sees things not going his way.
Actually, this court decision means that any agreement he has made with the squatters has no legal value.
Yes. But he ‘s going to have to plain why he can’t override that court decision. I doubt that that was in the small print.
Finally, some decency on this matter.
I’ve always wanted a place by the sea but since I can’t afford one I just grab a towel and lie on the rocks near it.
I could never understand why any administration would seek to sanction the abusive and illegal acts of these squatters.
Just one word will suffice – VOTES!
That is where the Nationalists went wrong. The squatters can never be expected to vote PN, even if they were given title to the land they occupied in a an illegal manner.
Why try to pander to their whims when you should know from the very start that nothing you give them will win them over to vote for you?
A way out of this sticky mess is to surround the entire coast of Malta with a giant never ending favela and every citizen will be entitled to a shanty cabin by the sea.
According to the online report “Questioned about the court’s decision in Brussels, Dr Muscat said he had not yet read the judgment”.
What difference does it make whether he reads the judgement or not. The Court has delivered its judgement which is clear: the shacks have to go. Whatever Joseph promised before the elections is history.
The Court did not rule against the government but in favour of the Commissioner of Lands who represents the State who had filed proceedings to evict the occupiers. Interesting Humpty Dumpty logic.
[Daphne – What does Humpty Dumpty have to do with it, David? Courts never rule against ‘governments’ per se: in the state itself, it’s against the relevant state department or body. Outside the country, e.g. the ECHR, cases and rulings are X vs Malta. However, many of the decisions which led to the cases are ultimate government decisions, as with this one.]
Le mhux bulldozers se juza Joseph, se jgaralhom il-briks. Ghax hekk ghallmuh missirijiet il-moviment laburista.
Separation of powers means that the officers who serve the pizza do not serve the sausage rolls.
Of course I don’t agree with anyone building wherever they like (I wish i was born a few decades earlier though) but some friends of mine (not in Little Armier) built their little shanties decades before any laws were in place.
And every successive government since then has told them they can stay. Since then they have invested money to better their shanty and now it is a summer home, bedroom, kitchens, verandas etc.
My point is, is it their fault or the govts of past?
If this govt throws them out, is that right, after all they invested money due to previous governments telling them they are fine were they are.
If I was one of them, and this govt decided to throw me out, I would sue every govt official that told them (or wrote to them) telling them they can stay there.
Who is to blame. The people or the government and what is the solution? Comments?
If you park your car but left it open with the keys in the ignition, would you argue that consequently I would have the right to drive away in your car and then crash it beyond recognition with no legal responsibility for damages?