.png)
Updated | Repealing IIP citizenship would be unconstitutional - Attorney General
Home Affairs ministry flags ‘conflict’ for Opposition as EP candidate and MP assisting rival bidder in delaying IIP.
31 October 2013, 12:00am
Matthew Vella
Matthew Vella
3 min read
Updated with comments from Attorney General
The Attorney General has told MaltaToday that no minister can repeal citizenship acquired by naturalisation, unless "specific acts" are committed by the naturalised citizen, suggesting that Opposition leader Simon Busuttil's intention to repeal 'IIP passports' if elected to government is unconstitutional.
Busuttil told the House on Wednesday he would repeal passports acquired under the Individual Investor Programme for €650,000, if the Nationalists are returned to power.
But in a comment sought by MaltaToday, Attorney General Peter Grech said that citizenship granted under the IIP can only be repealed for the same reasons and subject to the same procedures applicable to other citizenship acquired by naturalisation or by registration.
"Deprivation of citizenship acquired by naturalisation is provided for by law on the basis of specific acts attributable to the naturalised citizen and is subject to procedural safeguards in each individual case. The wholesale deprivation of citizenship of a particular class of naturalised citizens irrespective of their conduct is not possible under our Constitutional and legal system," Grech told this newspaper.
The citizenship law allows the home affairs minister to repeal naturalised citizenship in cases of acts that threaten national security.
The government and the Opposition are at loggerheads over the IIP, although it is unclear as to whether the Nationalist Party is against the IIP on a matter of principle or because it is unconvinced that the €650,000 cash donation is a tangible enough form of investment.
The home affairs ministry today said the PN had a lot to answer for, claiming that while it was criticising the IIP, one of its candidates for the European elections was counselling financial advisors Arton Capital Inc in civil proceedings demanding the nullification of the contract the ministry awarded to Henley & Partners as the exclusive concessionaire for the IIP.
Arton Capital's legal representative is Nationalist candidate for the European elections Therese Commodini Cachia, and in an earlier appeal on the tender was represented by FZD Advocates, whose senior partner is Nationalist MP Francis Zammit Dimech.
The home affairs ministry has called this a "possible conflict of interest as both the Opposition and the company [Arton] have the same agenda".
"The Opposition's agenda against the IIP goes hand-in-hand with the company's actions that failed to win the contract," the ministry said, adding that a Nationalist MP enjoyed "personal interest" in the same company.
"Opposition leader Simon Busuttil has to answer for these possible conflicts of interests and for the PN's strategy to delay the implementation of the IIP", the ministry said, adding that Arton Capital was interested in seeing that the IIP is delayed as much as possible.
"There are clear suspicions that the Nationalist Party is working hand-in-hand with this company," the ministry declared.
The government added that it would remain committed to see the implementation of the programme, which seeks to sell citizenship to applicants for €650,000, after concessionaire Henley conducts due diligence on applicants.
Opposition leader Simon Busuttil yesterday told the House he would repeal all passports issued under the IIP, which will sell citizenship for €650,000, if the Nationalists are returned to power.
In comments to MaltaToday, a partner from Henley said he was "perturbed" at this news adding Busuttil's stand took him by surprise after Henley had provided the Opposition with a presentation on the IIP.
According to PN MP Jason Azzopardi, the Opposition "disagreed in principle with putting citizenship up for sale".
"But if the government remains committed to the plan, we want to ensure that all safeguards, including obligatory residence, are implemented and that no conflict of interest exists," he said.
Confirming that the Opposition had attended the Henley presentation, Azzopardi said the PN MPs had asked why the scheme was not tied to investment.
Henley, he added, had told them that "they had strongly advised government to do so, but the government was in a rush".
Henley & Partners had already been appointed by the preceding Nationalist administration for assistance on the permanent residency scheme, and its overhaul into the High Net Worth Individuals scheme, which later was reformed and rebranded by the Labour government into the global residence programme.
Matthew Vella, a freelance journalist at MaltaToday, was formerly executive editor at Malt...
•
Mr Privitera, Of course I am a lawyer. The constitution does not have anything to do with the issue and I think the A-G is mixing the issue with the collective expulsion of aliens which is prohibited by Article 4 of the Fourth Protocol to the European Convention of Human Rights. In this case, no one is talking of expelling any of these individuals and in all probability, they will not be even resident in Malta. One must also point out that as the proposed legislation stands, the minister can denaturalize any naturalized citizens for a variety of reasons and in any case, what parliament makes today, it can unmake in the future. That is for sure a sound constitutional principle. Thus, those who will be naturalized by this scheme as Maltese citizens will have no constitutional guarantees and a future government can indeed revoke their citizenship. J. Ellis
•
JOEELLIs: So you think a new government can change the constitution at will ??? Are you a lawyer ??
•
joeellis: Simon did not make any distinction at all !he said he will keep all options open, even withdrawing the citizenship of those who obtain it through the Individual Investor Programme. Simon must surely have known that what he was saying cannot be done, but he thought it may have an effect on those who were listening to his speech !
•
But why is Simple Simon so stupid? Do you have to shoot from the hip all the time? Mind you, for us at the PL, you are still our best asset. But please stop damaging your country with your stupid comments.
•
Now we have it in black and white: Simon is not angry because Muscat is selling 'Malta's soul'; but because their 'pet 'company Aton international did not get the contract to sell'Malta's soul'!
Surprise surprise, no conflict of interest was declared from the humans rights champion Dr Comodini; neither from Dr Zammit Dimech- who is Aton's legal representative in Malta!
This is just like the BWSC saga part 2: taking us for fools, for stupid; for people who cannot count 1+1!
Unluckily, at the rate Simon is going- we are going to end up without a trustful opposition, with Simon simply playing for time and wasting the Opposition resources through childish and stupid operettas, not conducive to a healthy democracy!
•
I agree with the opinion of the Attorney General. There have been a number of rulings such as in the American Supreme court which declared denaturalisation as unconstitutional. Countries like the US, Australia and Canada only revoke citizenship if the original application is vitiated by the applicant providing false information. To be fair Israel uses it against so called Palestian terrorists and the US is considering it against those terrorists who fight against the American homeland. Otherwise it has only been used for ethnic cleansing of Palestians in Jordan, Kurds in Syria and some African dictators. I trust that democratic SB will reassure us that he will only revisit for false declarations in the original applications although if he ever becomes PM it will be his prerogative to change naturalisation laws.
•
(1) Halloween mask whisked off Xmun? (2) "The government and the Opposition are at loggerheads over the IIP", <> I would say more like who got the contact for marketing, etc, etc this scheme!!! EVVIVA l'interess privat!
•
Another burst bubble.
•
Citizenship should only be granted either through family or for the good of the nation, it should not be sold like a piece of property. What guarantee is there that the 'purchaser' is of citizenship standard, and not just because of the size of their bank balance
•
Dr Simon Busuttil should go back to university and start reading law again from first year.
•
I think the A-G's remarks are uncalled for as I do not think that Busuttil stated that all naturalized citizens under the IIP programme will have their citizenship revoked, but rather the Opposition reserved the right to do so in particular cases. This has to be seen in the light that section 14 of the Maltese Citizenship Act already gives extensive powers to the minister to revoke the citizenship of naturalized subjects. And there always exists the possibility, limited as it may be, that the new law will be abrogated by a referendum.
What the A-G is stating on the other hand is plainly unconstitutional because no parliament can bind a future parliament as to its future legislation and as we were taught that parliament can make donkeys fly, a future parliament may decide to revoke the citizenship granted under the so-called IIP scheme (as opposed to such revocation being made by the minister). Then, it would be up to the individuals concerned to contest the law constitutionally on grounds which are still obscure to me. And the final word would be of the Constitutional Court or the ECHR, not the A-G.
J. Ellis.
•
Hawn mhux il-gvern hu mhawwad imma Simon D Simple u shabu. Min jaf ghalhiex qed jagixxu hekk. Min se jkollu fiducja f'Malta jekk allahares qatt in-nazzjonalisti jerghu ikunu fil gvern xi 20 sena ohra.
