A number of pitkala today argued in court that a new measures requiring them to provide a bank guarantee is not logical, and may cause traders a living. 

A legal notice enacted last January obliges traders to provide a bank guarantee, equivalent to 10% of the previous year's turnover, in order to have their license renewed.

In March, The Pitkala Association filed a judicial protest calling on the government to revise its position, arguing that several vendors do not have the financial means to pay the guarantee and that some of them may have to close down their business as a result of this measure.

Trader Paul Bonello, who has been working at the Pitkalija for the past 30 years, said that last November government representative Mario Spiteri called a meeting at the ministry to announce the measure.

The traders had asked the ministry for four days to discuss, but the next day, the department sent an official letter, telling them that if they don't pay the guarantee, their license would not be renewed.

Mr Bonello said that traders are obliged to accept works from the farmers, and deals are based on trust, not contracts. He explained that they are paid 8% commission, from auction of produce. The buyers would go to the Ta Qali APS bank branch and deposit the money there. At the end of the month, the monies would be collected from the bank and distributed accordingly. However this changed last November, when it was announced that the pitkala were going to be responsible for collecting the money, and not APS bank.

In court, Dr Spiteri explained that the legal notice requires traders to gather money from hawker, because of the bank guarantee. He said that before the new system came into force the bank was exposed to risk if the pitkal did not deposit the money, and the government had to step in to make up for the shortfalls.  Authorities decided on a 10% figure because often a month or two would be skipped.

Lawyer Edward Gatt said that whoever drafted the legislation does not understand the role of the pitkal, explaining that the the pitkal acts as a middlemen between the farmer and the seller. "The turnover of the pitkal is not the turnover of the farmer. The 10% should have been on the 8% commission and not on the sales, immaterial of how much it is," he argued. 

Magistrate J.R Micallef presided.