The right of reply reads as follows:

1. Contrary to the title of your story, I never claimed to be the “owner of a medieval village in Dingli.” I claim to be the legal owner of an agricultural property sometimes referred to as “is- Simblija,” which is located in Rabat, Malta.

2. “Is-Simblija” is in short the name given by my ancestors in the 1700s to a piece of farmland as “Ix-Xagħra tas-Simblija,” as has been demonstrated by me in courts of law under oath with copies of public contracts involving my ancestors.

3. That land, managed as grazing land, is an integral part of a larger consolidated agricultural property, comprising of arable land, and including an old farm, held under the legal title, all of which are extensively documented as such in public documents spanning several centuries.

4. In my rights of reply published in the media over the years since 2012, I repeatedly mentioned the farming and agricultural nature of the property. Now an independent study published in 2016 confirms the nature of the property as an agricultural estate and vindicates my claims.

5. My ancestors have held legal title, documented in public contracts, to the land and its farm structures since the 1600s, now spanning five centuries, and have operated on that land a private farming activity which is ongoing to this date.

6. The notion of a Simblija “medieval village,” which is used by third parties with reference to the old farm, is a figment of the imagination of a few organised groups, including some people high up in politics, who have promoted such false description in order to deceive the public and to take control of the farm of this property. The farm is first-ever documented from the 1600s, and the “Simblija” name appeared in the 1700s as stated above.

7. The farm was described as a “settlement” in a 2002 study. Since a settlement is a place where people establish themselves for a long time, and since my family has lived on this land and held legal rights on the farm since the 1600s, I think it is fair to say that my family is the settlement. The Rabat countryside is dotted with similar settlements, mostly on privately held farmland.

8. A “Dingli medieval village” may possibly exist at the Djar il-Bniet estate (not the restaurant) in Dingli, which refers to an extensive rural property with a medieval history from the time it was granted as a Barony by feudal tenure to Cicco Gatto, the Keeper of the Royal Castle of Malta (hence the Royal Castellan), by King Louis of Sicily in 1350. The old place name, meaning “Houses for Girls” suggests a cluster of habitations.

9. Similar old agricultural estates include the Ġnien Tad-Daħla in Santa Katerina, where existing farm structures were recently replaced with an apartment-style development, including a swimming pool in one of the estate’s fields in the Santa Katerina valley below.

10. As an agricultural property with legal titles, the Simblija property and my legal rights thereon are protected like any other property under Protocol Number 1 to the European Convention for Human Rights which deals with “the right to property.”

11. Works carried out 20 years ago on part of the property’s farm complex with the help of pre-accession EU funds consisted of preventive maintenance, and not of restoration works as stated in your report. The method statement of the works held at the Planning Authority states clearly that: “The concept to be adopted in this case is one of preventive maintenance rather than restoration. Considering the still relative good untouched state of the complex, restoration is unnecessary.”

12. Those funds must not be confused in nature with funds like those allocated in 2013-2014 by the Majjistral Action Group Foundation (MAGF) to farmers of the Diar il-Bniet estate in Dingli under the EU AFRD Measure 313 “Encouragement of Tourism Activities” scheme, which sought to facilitate touristic access to scenic and historic areas. According to a public statement by the MAGF Chairman, funds of circa Euro 100,000 allocated to the Diar il-Bniet farmers were intended, among other things, for the development of a recreational area, pathways, lights, benches and signage at their estate, which suggest an intent of public access.

13. The wooden crates stored in one part of my farm is part of and confirms the property’s agricultural activity. The store containing boxes was not within the scope of the preventive maintenance works mentioned before, because works were carried out only on a small part of the farm. Therefore, the photos published with your story are misleading.

14. I deny the allegation reproduced in your report that I “aggressively” stopped a man, or that I harass the public. If anything, it is members of my family and myself who are harassed with the intrusion of the public in our property, very often acting on the false information published in the media by third parties about our property, such as that reproduced in your article.

15. As for the events of 30th January 2022 to which your report refers, my account is that four strangers entered my gated farm property (I had told two of them that this was private property a week earlier) and confronted me loudly, addressing me by my name whilst refusing to identify themselves, filming me with their mobile, shouting their pretended rights with threats, provocations and insults at me, including “buffu” (clown), “fucking joke,” and the offensive term “pufta.” Since I have faced many situations like this in my property, my immediate reaction was to call the police, at which point they escaped on their bikes. I have sent you an audio recording and pictures to support my account. 

16. In a separate article, entitled “Explainer: The Simblija medieval settlement and its series of ownership issues” published on 10 February 2022, your journalist made reference to a court decision. Your article is misleading because there was another court decision in 2019, which, together with the injunction order mentioned in your report, contained an extensive explanation of the issues underlying the court decisions, but your report failed to produce those explanations, adding further to your biased reporting.

What do you make of his right of reply?