Attorney General confirms no ratification was required for PfP reactivation

As the Parliamentary Foreign and European Affairs Committee continued its hearings in the wake of an Opposition motion that calls for the resignation of Malta's permanent representative to the EU Richard Cachia Caruana, the Attorney General (AG) Peter Grech has confirmed that the 2008 reactivation of Malta's participation in the Partnership for Peace (PfP) programme did not require parliamentary approval.

In his testimony, Grech said that both the original adhesion in 1995 and the withdrawal in 1996 did not fall within the requirements of the Ratification of Treaties Act.

Grech said the 1996 Security of Documents agreement between Nato and Malta did not constitute an international treaty and so did not require ratification by parliamentary resolution or by law.

He added that no reference to the Ratification of Treaties Act had been made when Malta first signed the PfP Framework Document in 1995, when Malta withdrew from PfP in 1996 and when it rejoined in 2008.

The AG said that the framework document was different from a regular treaty because it did not impose specific requirements on Malta, which was only agreeing to cooperate with other states within the PfP framework.

He said the decision to exit the programme in 1996 was flawed because this was not approved by Parliament and the subsequent re-activation in 2008 did not require Parliamentary ratification.

Asked Labour MP George Vella to qualify the PfP agreement, Grech said it was not an agreement between states and this kind of agreement did not require Parliamentary ratification. 

Vella retorted that the doubts about the validity of this legal interpretation are justified by the preamble of the agreement which reads "We the heads of state and government..."

At this point, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said the AG had interpreted the law as it was, while Vella was making political arguments.

Grech explained that his legal interpretation was that the security agreement did not fall within the definitions of the Security of Treaties Act. The Act spoke of treaties between states but this was a treaty with a single international organisation.

Vella and his fellow Labour MP Luciano Busuttil insisted that the PfP agreement constituted an agreement with other states and not with a single organisation. Busuttil pointed out that the agreement was made with Nato which was made up of several sovereign states.

He added that the Nato secretary general Javier Solana must have needed the consent of all member countries before signing the security agreement with Malta.

Grech then explained that Nato has a different juridical personality than individual member states and compared Nato to a company which has individual shareholders but is a separate entity from the shareholders.

Opposition MPs Leo Brincat and Owen Bonnici also intervened during the meeting. The Opposition's motion will now be discussed in the plenary on Monday at 5pm when it is expected that Parliament takes a decisive vote on Cachia Caruana.