Betrayed by their protectors

Times of Malta reported that Alicia Bugeja Said, Parliamentary Secretary for Fisheries, Aquaculture and Animal Rights declared in so many words that the government would be granting an amnesty to owners of unregistered dangerous animals.

Among other measures, it plans to introduce 90 days for their registration and neutering. Failing registration, stiff fines would apply.

This news was met with disbelief by animal lovers and law-abiding citizens. The highest authority in the administration responsible for the protection of animal welfare was selling out animals’ rights for reasons which remain mysterious and incomprehensible.

The fact it was common knowledge that dangerous animals were being kept illegally and in stressful conditions came as a surprise only to those who are obliged to prevent/prosecute such occurrences.

To compound matters, I cannot trace any pronouncement by the commissioner for animal welfare on this sell-out although her website states it is her office’s responsibility to promote the implementation of and the compliance with the Animal Welfare Act.

The circumstances which sparked off this pronouncement are, sadly, simple. It is common knowledge that, in today’s macho culture, dangerous animals are being kept in captivity and that in certain cases these animals are being kept in poor and unhealthy conditions.

The owners of these animals are manifestly in breach of the law.

On January 4, Bugeja Said was quoted saying: “I am commenting now that more facts have been established while ensuring that I do not prejudice the ongoing investigation in any way. The ministry’s officials have all the regulatory tools at their disposal to investigate and, where necessary, prosecute cases of animal cruelty.

“The government is determined to ensure that the investigative, regulatory and enforcement channels are always available and applicable in all circumstances involving animal cruelty.”

Something mysterious happened after this pronouncement to deflate the government’s determination.

The law regulating the matter is the Animal Welfare Act, chapter 439 of the Laws of Malta, enacted in 2001 and only amended last October.

Although there are two manifest breaches of the law here – the sale, breeding or importation of dangerous animals and the ill-treatment of such animals – the dark side to the story is the apparent complicity of the administration by totally disregarding existing legislation and abdicating its duty.

What does the law provide in these circumstances?

If the facts are as described, that is dangerous animals were kept, bred or imported illegally and they were being ill-treated, then the director for veterinary services and/or the director for animal welfare via the commissioner of police are duty-bound to prosecute the offender before the courts of law demanding, for a first time offender, the imposition of a fine between €2,000 and €65,000 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or to both fine or imprisonment together.

The offender, if found guilty of ill-treatment, could also be prohibited from ever keeping animals in his/her control. A register for persons prohibited from keeping animals should be in existence.

The director of veterinary services or the director for animal welfare may, in lieu of prosecution, impose a penalty by serving a notice. As stated, second-time offenders cannot benefit from this administrative solution.

The law does not contemplate any form of amnesty or arrangement whereby offenders may be let off the hook- Franco Vassallo

Anyone served with a notice may opt to contest this administrative solution and ask that the matter is decided by a court of law. A person who agrees to the notice may be fined up to €80,000 payable as a civil debt. If the notice is ignored then the offender should appear before the courts. Costs for the relocation and keeping of the animals are always charged to the offender.

I cannot trace any provision of law prohibiting the directors for veterinary services and animal welfare from demanding registration and neutering within the parameters of existing legislation

In layman’s terms, apart from the notice described above, the law does not contemplate any form of amnesty or arrangement whereby offenders may be let off the hook. The parliamentary secretary is acting as if the law does not apply to whom she or the administration may choose.

The press release actually makes one believe that the disregard of the law is being made for public safety and for the animals’ benefit, ignoring legislation she spearheaded in October 2024 and her own January declaration.

Does the public have the right to know the real reason the offenders were spared prosecution? The argument that this was made to safeguard the

animals’ welfare is not only facetious but intrinsically wrong and malign.

It is only through the application of the law and the imposition of fines/imprisonment that a deterrent can be made to prevent future breaches of the law.

By ignoring the law, the administration is once again (amnesties in the electricity thefts and the disability benefits scheme come to mind) encouraging citizens to ignore the law and, when caught, lobby for a pardon through political (read underhand) channels.

I assume and hope that the parliamentary secretary has solid legal advice that the law can be ignored but that is another story.

What about the innocent animals who miraculously materialised in various Maltese locations? The animals have been betrayed by the very offices established for their protection.

The failures of Bugeja Said, the director of veterinary services, the director for animal welfare and the commissioner for animal welfare (by her silence), who have all abandoned their administrative duties and favoured the law breakers, are evident.

Once again, the commissioner of police is noticeable by his absence.

On behalf of our furry friends and law-abiding citizens, shame on you. Remember they don’t have a voice, we do.

Franco Vassallo

Franco Vassallo is a lawyer who has been practising for over 40 years and is now mainly focused on environmental and administrative aspects of the law.