A veteran lawyer and former minister has joined the legal dispute surrounding the makeshift memorial to slain journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, claiming that he too, as a Maltese citizen, has a right to safeguard the nation’s cultural heritage.

In an application filed before the First Hall, Civil Court, Dr Joseph Brincat claimed that his right to freedom of expression entitled him to speak out and insist that the Great Siege monument, currently converted into a makeshift memorial by members of the public placing flowers, candles and pictures of the murdered journalist, always had “one sole significance.”

After repeated efforts by workers from the public cleansing department to clear away the items of remembrance, the matter had ended up before the courts following a constitutional application filed by activist Manuel Delia, the first hearing of the case scheduled for the next week.

Read: Removal of Caruana Galizia memorial was a breach of rights, court told

“Manuel Delia cannot expect that his right is greater than that of the undersigned and many other Maltese, as had been established through official declarations under a multitude of administrations about the Great Siege monument,” Dr Brincat argued.

The monument, a masterpiece of Maltese sculptor Antonio Sciortino dating back to 1927, had been restored in 2010 and had been acclaimed by then Deputy Prime Minister Tonio Borg as “not only one of national importance but also a monument signifying a great victory for the safety of Europe at the time.”

Moreover, as a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe, Malta was to take legal steps to protect its architectural heritage and monuments, in such manner as “to prevent the disfigurement, demolition or dilapidation of protected properties.”

Activists place photos of assassinated anti-corruption journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia together with flowers, candles and protest posters, in the entrance of Malta's Ministry of Justice after Justice Minister Owen Bonnici ordered the monument to be cleared. File photo: Reuters

Public spaces were to be regulated by the State and were not intended for “the capricious use by an individual who, if denied such use, claims to have no freedom,” Dr Brincat went on, pointing out that cultural heritage belonged to all citizens.

Consequently , besides an equal right to freedom of expression, the applicant had a “right of cultural possession” over the monument which “must not be infringed by the pretext of someone who wishes to change and denature its significance.”

For this reason, Dr Brincat requested the court to allow him to join the suit filed by Mr Delia so as to safeguard his rights, adding that he could bring a “great number” of Maltese citizens who wanted the monument to remain “untouched.”