UPDATED:The revocation of bought passports – the Opposition leader’s speech in parliament and an expert opinion in Constitutional law
I have to say that Simon Busuttil really got going there. Meanwhile, here is an expert (truly expert) opinion on the matter, by somebody whose identity cannot – most unfortunately, because then it would be the final word on the subject – be divulged.
——–
THE REVOCATION OF BOUGHT PASSPORTS – WHY EVER WOULD IT BE DESCRIBED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL?
I have not seen the confidential advice, said to have been given by the Attorney-General to the Government, about the proposed scheme to sell – for cash – the passports of Malta and of the European Union. And so I must rely on what was reported in the newspapers: and this was to the effect that it would be “unconstitutional” to revoke citizenship of a person who has acquired it against cash.
Why? Citizenship-for-banknotes is not a birthright, nor is it a right granted by the Constitution. It is a “normal” right which will be granted by an ordinary law. Anything granted by an ordinary law can be revoked by an ordinary law.
A simple majority in parliament has granted it – a simple majority in parliament may revoke it. To claim otherwise would be to undermine the very concept of the supremacy of democracy by which a simple majority in parliament has the power to repeal any law passed by a simple majority.
It would make a mockery of the basic principle of governance which is that, subject to the Constitution, parliament makes laws, and parliament unmakes them.
It may not be unconstitutional to hawk citizenship over the counter (I doubt it). It is certainly not unconstitutional to annul that sale.
This scheme is not about “birthright citizenship”. It is about a commercial transaction by which, through an ordinary law, a person who is not entitled to birthright citizenship pays in cash for a questionably untradeable commodity – citizenship. It is no different to paying for garage space or for a fishing permit.
I doubt that the Attorney-General meant that if a government sells the Maltese flag or the national anthem to an Azerbaijani consortium, it would be unconstitutional for a subsequent government to have second thoughts.
If the Opposition has made it clear that it will revoke those citizenships-for-banknotes after a change of government, then persons who purchase these precarious citizenships know in advance that they are Maltese citizens for the duration of a Labour government.
They take a calculated risk that their citizenship has a use-by date, after which their investment will become toxic.
—–
I asked the writer of this piece to address the issue of persons rendered stateless by the revocation of their bought Maltese passport (many of those who buy one will be giving up the passport of their country of origin). This was the reply:
The right to a nationality acquired by naturalization is not a fundamental human right, protected either by the Constitution or by the European Court of Human Rights.
The (ordinary) law that regulates citizenship lists various cases in which non-birthright citizenship can be revoked (from memory: for grievous criminal activity, for conduct hostile to the state, for misrepresentation in the application, etc).
What is not on is for a state to render stateless its own birthright citizens. There is no such ban relating to citizens “naturalized” by grant or discretion.
I am quite unable to believe the Attorney-General could really have advised that the revocation of a citizenship-by-purchase is ‘unconstitutional’. The Constitution itself expressly provides for the “loss of Maltese citizenship” in Article 22(1). The Constitution also expressly provides that forfeiture or revocation of Maltese citizenship shall be regulated by ordinary law – as it already is today.
——–
Article 15 of the Citizenship Act deals with the revocation of Maltese citizenship. You can read it here: chapt188
84 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
But if they are Maltese citizens they will vote, and they will only ever vote Labour. So basically Labour have just taken the practice of buying votes to a whole new level.
Not exactly. Any voter is eligible for his vote only if he resides in Malta for not less than six months in a year.I can be corrected in the number of months but surely there is a number of stipulated months. These new ‘citizens’ cannot afford to stay put in Malta for months.
[Daphne – No, that business about spending X months in Malta has been dismissed by the court, which ruled that you can have a vested interest in Malta even if you haven’t lived here for X years. But yes, being a citizen is not enough. You must have a vested interest in the country.]
If they qualify for the vote, surely their name will be published on the electoral register in the Government Gazette anyway, making the whole secrecy of who gets a Maltese passport pointless.
And I’m pretty sure that Labour will, you know, make a few concessions regarding that whole thing.
Or better still, use that as one of the selling points.
@ Clueless
My thinking is that if they can get their due diligence to be negligent, they can also forget to list specific new citizens now eligible to vote, if necessary. In a blink of an eye.
Will any of those who buy a Maltese passport even bother voting in a Maltese election? It’s straight on to London or Paris, and Malta Who?
I thought about that. It would be difficult. The law states that voters should reside in Malta for so many years and have a permanent Maltese address.
As soon as Hui Chong Lee, Paresh Patel, and Ibrahim Ben Hassan appear on the electoral register they will stick out like a sore thumb and the PN will file an objection in court to remove these ‘bought’ voters from the electoral register.
Do not forget that these ‘investors’ won’t have their names published .
Labour Party transparency at its best.
Gahan, they will have to be published in the electoral register as only people who are listed on the electoral register get the vote.
It is highly unlikely that buyers of citizenship will ever bother to vote or take any sort of interest in Malta.
We have to remember that their real target will be the EU not Malta.
My, how naive you are. Labour is capable of anything, even selling an undemocratic or anti-democratic practice as the essence of democracy.
With the secrecy that this amendment envisages (it is removing the obligation the minister had up to the present to publish the names of all naturalized citizens in the government gazette every three months), it is not beyond Labour to get the members of this ‘secret society’ to change their names to nondescript ones that wouldn’t be noticed.
It’s not only votes he bought but people who’d be more than happy to keep funding the party which won’t revoke their citizenship for many elections to come
Exactly. Some members of my family, and friends, thought I was being paranoid and dramatic when I told them that Joseph Muscat will do everything in his power to remain PM for many years to come.
I have been repeating ad nauseam: Joseph Muscat is more dangerous than Duminku Mintoff.
@TinaB: I’ve been saying the same. At least Mintoff never pretended to be what he wasn’t. He would never play snake oil salesman for the votes of some gullible ‘tal-pepe” switchers.
@TinaB
I get the same reactions from my circle. Mintoff was unbelievable but there were limits. Muscat has no limits and will stoop to anything.
Be careful, just the thought of being compared to Mintoff will turn Joseph on uncontrollably. He’d cause even further damage
I fully agree with the position set out above. From a quick look at the Constitution, I found no reference to any prohibition to the revocation of citizenship.
The AG should be asked to quote the chapter and verse to support his statement.
Edward Zammit Lewis is quoting Chapter 188 of the Constitution which says that citizenship can only be revoked if obtained through fraud or false representation.
I don’t know which law supersedes which.
Edward Zammit-Lewis is not quoting the Constitution of Malta but the Citizenship Act (Chapter 188 of the laws of Malta) which is an ordinary law and can be amended by a simple majority, as is just happening right now through the bought-citizenship amendment.
Any simple majority in a future parliament can repeal the present amendment and further change the provisions Edward Zammit-Lewis is quoting just as the present amendment is removing the provisions of the Citizenship Act requiring the home affairs minister to publish every three months the names of persons granted Maltese citizenship.
Furthermore, the provisions Edward Zammit-Lewis is quoting actually mention ‘material concealment’ as a reason for withdrawal of citizenship. This can actually be interpreted to mean that the fact that those granted citizenship under this new amendment will be kept secret is itself a reason for their citizenship to be withdrawn in future by a government that really believes in transparency.
Many people, even of a Labour persuasion, are against the citizenship for sale and on sale amendment, expect it to be repealed in future and expect citizenship granted under its provisions to be withdrawn.
Given that we won’t have access to the process, and that certificates including police records will remain under the agency’s remit, fraud will be consistently plausible.
Ergo, a vitiated process produces flawed results to be revoked.
The Constitution supersedes ANY law of the land – as long as such law is an ordinary law.
Basically, any law that is incompatible with the Constitution is null and void.
Will other EU countries deport someone whose Maltese citizenship has been revoked, even if they have a family and business and are well established? I’d expect they would, but it seems so drastic that I have my doubts at the same time.
I have to admit it, Simon Busuttil has really come of age.
Why not have a referendum on changing the Constitution to allow selling citizenship?
Should the Labour Government not also be presenting this information at their ridiculous presentation sessions?
Would it not be product misrepresentation if they didn’t fully inform the “customer?”
The PN should also emphasise that there will not be any reimbursement for the passport purchased.
Spot on. I am glad to hear this because it makes perfect sense.
Chi bolla sbolla.
The Prime Minister has no alternative.
He has to keep his pre-election promises.
He bought his election victory by selling Maltese citizenship to foreigners.
In the very near future Malta will face the consequences.
Now but it is late many, many PL voters are very sorry.
Last night I watched a clip on NET TV in which he promised that there would be no increase in minister’s pay in his government – and the people in front of him answered with a frenzy of clapping.
So much for public promises. It seems his word only counts when given behind closed doors.
This is exactly what happens when a right is turned into a commodity.
Endless garbled logic ensues, not that Labour are alien to it.
The idea of messing around with what constitutes being a citizen of one’s country, that’s it really, is a scam in itself.
We could, in theory, have people trading up their passports, gives marrying for money a new meaning.
“Birthright citezenship””
Could this mean that a citzenship acquired through marriage can be revoked?
[Daphne – Yes, it can. But the grounds for doing so are laid out in the law: article 14 of the Citizenship Act.]
We may have just put ourselves in a position where popular revolts ousting dictators and their acolytes could very well double the island’s economy.
And did anyone get in touch with Berlusconi?
He has a foothold and already makes use of the VIP lounge.
Just to make it clear, any foreign millionaire isn’t buying a passport to vote in Malta but to live in Europe or the US. They can get a passport and never set foot here.
@Libertas – thank you for the explanation.
Very interesting reading.
But the AG knows that if he says otherwise, his head will probably roll. He has survived the new government…
… so far.
Section 14 (2) of the Citizenship Act already states that the home affairs minister may deprive of his citizenship any naturalized citizen of Malta if that citizen… has been ordinarily resident in foreign countries for a continuous period of seven years and during that period has… (not) given notice in writing to the Minister of his intention to retain citizenship of Malta.
It is very obvious that the law as it is ALREADY allows for withdrawal of citizenship.
Only slight amendments would be needed to get these bought passports withdrawn without in any way changing the spirit of a law that already allows withdrawal of citizenship.
You no longer live in a country anymore; you live in a company.
Muscat is not a Prime Minister; he’s the boss.
No longer is there Malta’s interests, but the boss’ interests.
Drink the coolaid, smile, smile, smile and get used to it.
Well said.
If citizenship has been priced by government at €650K, can I apply to have my citizenship which carries a clean conduct revoked or sold for €650K? I would be most happy to apply to be accepted in another country where the ruling party holds integrity in higher esteem?
P.S Will also consider a negotiated price before the Police Commissioner decides to fabricate an accusation against me.
As I see it, the problem that will arise at the next general election will be this.
The purchasers of fake Maltese citizenship will obviously be international drug dealers, fraudsters and heads of other criminal organisations.
These people are billionaires.
Come 2018 they will flood the PL with hundreds of millions of euros to maintain the party in power to make sure they retain their Maltese passport.
I suspect some of them already have the PL on their payroll.
In four years’ time these gangsters will be owning and running the country.
Then we are doomed.
Malta’s is too small an economy to stand up to a posse of billionaires.
They will most certainly be in a position to buy and own the Malta government.
I wonder what that demented clown KMB thinks about this predicament.
Why do you say people will buy the Labour government? Will is a future tense. You should be using the past perfect: the Labour government had been bought when the Labour party was still in the opposition.
Which is why this scheme’s downright dangerous.
There will be literally some more equal than others in this place.
Jien cittadin Malti imma Nazzjonalist u ghal Joe Muscat u l-PL jien ma nezistiex.
Nista nixtri cittadinanza ohra forsi Joey itini xi kariga?
Let’s say that this bill passes through Parliament (as it most certainly will), does it still require the President’s approval for it to be applied?
The President must always approve any law and so theoretically can reject it, but whenever a law passes through Parliament, the President always gives his seal of approval. His signing of the law is just a mere formality.
And having heard the President’s speech earlier on in this legislature, I think we can safely say that there would be no way that any rejection of such a law would come about.
Citizenship by naturalisation can be revoked if the citizen is resident outside Malta for a period of seven years.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this article, the Minister may by order deprive of his Maltese citizenship any citizen of Malta who is such by registration or by naturalisation if he is satisfied that the citizen..
(d) has been ordinarily resident in foreign countries for a continuous period of seven years and during that period has neither –
(i) been at any time in the service of the Republic or of an international organisation of which the Government of Malta was a member; or
(ii) given notice in writing to the Minister of his intention to retain citizenship of Malta.
I hope the PN makes a clear declaration on this issue whereby this illogical “law” will be repealed and citizenship revoked where bought.
Glad to see your expert has answered my doubts. Cheers to the PN if they revoke this perverse law. They’re not usually fond of revoking anything and would rather let Labour-created problems fester.
I think that the Attorney General is more versed in law that someone who has never studied or practised law. If you have doubts on the AG’s reported opinion, you should have tried to ask others who are equally or more versed with constitutional and citizenship law. The AG’s view I think is based logically on the fact that at law there is no provision stating that citizenship can be withdrawn. If I were Dr Busuttil, I would propose that at least in certain circumstances citizenship under this scheme can be withdrawn (eg if the holder is or has been involved in criminal activity or if no investment or contribution to the economy is made).
[Daphne – David sweetheart, you don’t KNOW the AG’s view because he hasn’t told any of us. All we have is claims by Minister X, Y or Z about what the AG said to them. “Someone who has never studied or practised law”: as I wrote up above, this piece is literally an expert opinion, by somebody more qualified than the Attorney-General. And please know that you are revealing your interests and probably your career path by diving in to split hairs every time somebody mentions the law.]
All laws can be repealed. Parliament makes laws, and parliament unmakes them.
This law does not even need a two-thirds majority in Parliament.
Buying citizenship of a foreign (for the buyer) country is not a human right. Nor is retaining it.
Thansks for your sweet comments. The AG’s view were stated directly toMalta Today, and so I imagine his reported views are correct and besides they carry great legal weight. More weight has been added by the Dean of the Faculty of Laws. In this light, even if one accepts as equally valid the opposing view of the anonymous expert, it is better if the right to revoke citizenship under this scheme, at least in certain circumstances, is spelled out in the law. If a future goverrnment were to revoke the citizenship scheme and withdraw citizenship, those who acquired citizenship will probably contest this in court and the Maltese court may decide there is no right to revoke citizenship as there is no clear provision in law authorising this.
[Daphne – 1. The Attorney-General is wrong. The revocation of citizenship is unconstitutional only when that citizenship is one’s birthright, and then not because the constitution regulates citizenship but because the European Convention on Human Rights is supreme to the Constitution. In all other cases, citizenship is regulated by ordinary law. 2. The views of the individual who wrote a piece for this website saying that the revocation of bought citizenship is not unconstitutional carry far greater legal weight than those of the AG. It is a great shame that I may not reveal this person’s identity. 3. The views of the Dean of the Faculty of Laws carry not much weight at all. Aside from the fact that he appears to be a government puppet, he has a pedestrian mind. I have direct experience of this as he taught me international law. 4. Do you agree that Maltese passports should be sold in secret to people paying cash?]
Daphne could you ask the constitutional expert if the ‘cash for passports’ law if enacted would be anti constitutional?. If that is the case then I will be considering taking the government of Malta to the constitutional court for breaching my constitutional rights as a Maltese citizen.
Is this that same Attorney General who first agreed with Police Commissioner Rizzo that there is enough evidence against John Dalli and than agreed with Police Commissioner Zammit that there isn’t?
The above is very clear, an ordinary law can be repealed by another ordinary law.
So do Henley & Partners understood this, and are they going to advise their prospective clients about it? Because if not – and here’s the reason why the whole process was handed to them – they would be the ones liable for damages by those who could eventually lose their citizenship.
Joseph Muscat is buying votes to stay in power. Full stop the rest is secondary. This is legalized dictatorship.
Maaa how negative he is.
And what about their children? Would they by birth get a dual? Thus, creating a ‘Malta community’ somewhere else?
Thank you Libertas. A much needed clarification.
Could however, the present government contract with each successful applicant that should their citizenship be arbitrarily revoked, they would be entitled to get their money back?
Surely a PN government would have to honour that, putting a future PN administration in difficulty as they would have to dish out lots of money out of an Exchequer that is being bled dry.
Thank you, Simon Busuttil. We need to see/hear more like this.
I think that would be ultra vires and non-binding on a new government.
Or is Simon Busuttil just jealous? We should ask Eddy Privitera for his objective opinion on the matter. Maybe this whole plan was the PN’s in the first place. The argument in favour is that many EU countries do this – ask them which ones exactly and you get fish-at-feeding-time stares.
A bit of good news Malta beat Lithuania 10-13. Hope they win again next week when they play in Malta.
The best commemorative plaque in the world. Someone really should tell Muscat that that’s not a real title.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20131102/local/president-inaugurates-puttinu-house-in-london.492987#.UnUNhZG5MsY
While at it , let’s remove the George Cross from our flag and instead put the logo of the company which places the highest bid in a public auction. Or we can just ask China directly.
Nike, Apple, Three Hills Brand, Mediaset, Coca Cola, Nestle, Porsche, Playboy and Microsoft might be interested in spending some millions on this.
Chris Fearne on L-Iswed Fuq L-Abjad has just said that the Labour government has many other schemes planned for the next 5 years.
You know, Labour wants to pull this country out of pre-history. I hope they have some scheme that values Labour’s political dinosours.
If I have to buy the Maltese citizenship, I make sure I keep the receipt.
You can buy Gozitan citizenship at a discount. No receipt though.
The following article should be read with this: http://youtu.be/t1DWBKk5xHQ playing in the background:
http://www.independent.com.mt/mobile/2013-11-02/news/pn-afraid-citizenship-scheme-would-hurt-election-chances-3072950272/
Labour was always adamant against foreign interference and any kind of foreign rule. To the extent that neutrality was entrenched in the constitution.
While it is true that non-alignment under Labour meant non-alignment to Western powers, the policy was there.
Our membership with the EU was, among other things, damned for loss of sovereignty.
Any sale of shareholding of government assets to overseas sources of capital and any transfer of management to foreigners was heavily criticised.
Some voted Labour because of a more hard line approach to Africans coming to Malta (illegally or not).
Why is it, then, Labour is so liberal in selling part of the Maltese identity for 650,000? It is not as if 30 million Euros is going to save our deficit. Even if they sell 200 passports, surely that would not make an appreciable difference?
I suspect that is inexhorably tied and limited to people who bankrolled and will continue to bankroll Labour victories.
This is an extremely dangerous situation found in countries of South America, among others.
Muscat has taken politics to another level. He’s heading headlong towards a prime-minister-for-life kind of arrangement.
With CHOGM scheduled to take place in Sri Lanka later this month, the PM will have the opportunity to discuss this matter with like-minded states.
Busutill and all the PN MPs must urgently hold a prime-time press conference stating unequivocally that once the PN gets into government all the citizenships sold will be revoked and that all the monies paid will not be refunded.
The people who are paying 650,000 euros must be told in advance.
A press conference by three ministers on a Saturday afternoon. They must be worried sick that their plans will be thwarted.
The problem with you lot crying your eyes out everyday is because after 25 years making a mockery out of this country, your finding it very hard to digest that you no longer have a say in running our island. Calm down because this is going to take a long time, bye.
Are obtuseness, irrationality and a low IQ a pre-requisite for voting Labour?
Tajba, Anthony. You clearly form part of the 70 or so per cent of the population who think that a ballot sheet is a question that mystically pops up every five years or so asking you for your favourite colour.
It’s good to know that your Joseph is selling a mockery of a country to foreigners. If what you are saying is true, this scheme will not succeed.
Whereas you have a say, Anthony? Is Joseph consulting you before making policy?
Gosh, am I ever so jealous.
Anthony, can’t you get it into your thick skull that I or anyone who votes PN has absolutely no power over the country, whether the PN are in government or not.
It’s not that anyone of us benefits directly from having the PN in government. It’s that the PL always seem to turn this country into a laughing-stock, corrupt any institutions they get their hands on, and then get very bad ideas which will affect us all, you included.
Not bad after 25 years making a mockery out of this country.
Joey goes to London and proclaims to the world that Malta is the Eden and the Utopia.
I heard this evening on TVM news that the government will be helping Maltese families to adopt children from foreign countries including China. Really? China? How cruel is that?
The people of China are mourning the babies they were forced to abort, the babies they are not allowed to have, and the babies taken from them, and their children are being given away to countries like Malta for adoption.
We would have really reached the pits if our supposedly socialist government enters into any agreement of this kind. It makes you want to weep with shame.
Article 14 is much clearer on deprivation of citizenship:
14. (1) Subject to the provisions of this article, the Minister may by order deprive of his Maltese citizenship any citizen of Malta who is such by registration or naturalisation if he is satisfied that the registration or certificate of naturalisation was obtained by means of fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact.
All you need is a junior claims clerk from an insurance company to go through the application and I’m pretty sure they’ll find evidence of “fraud, false representation or the concealment of any material fact.” in all of them. You might even make a case that fraud is inherent to the process because of the secrecy, the monopoly, the commission, the fast tracking, the mediocre due diligence etc etc.
The appeals process, fairly or not, is stacked in the state’s favour so anyone whose citizenship is revoked is probably better off just buying one of the even cheaper and shadier ones rather than contesting it.
The Attorney General’s published opinion seems to deliberately skirt round article 14(1)