IIP regulator questions ‘legitimacy’ of publishing names

The Regulator of the Individual Investor Programme (IIP) has questioned the legitimacy and fairness of publishing names of persons registered as Maltese citizens, “given that they are citizens of this country of equal standing to those who are Maltese through, say, birth”.

Home Affairs Minister Carmelo Abela this evening tabled in parliament a copy of the second annual report on the IIP programme, penned by Godwin Grima – the former head of civil service under the PN administration.

In his foreword, the Regulator also put forward three suggestions, one relating to the citizenship department, the second to publicity requirement and a third to regulatory governance.

The Report covers the period between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 2015.

73 passports have been sold to main applicants since the launch of the IIP, reaping €75 million.

A launch marred in controversy, the IIP has the blessing of the European Commission. The Opposition still insists that the government should publish the names of the people who have been sold citizenship. Leader Simon Busuttil claims that, if elected prime minister, he “will publish their names for the sake of transparency”.

Well aware of his more “controversial” proposal, Grima wrote that the publication of names – even in its current format along those who obtained citizenship through other avenues – is possibly “shying away applicants”.

“Publication is particularly sensitive to those hailing from particular regions. I am not advocating doing away with transparency. But I do believe that there may be other ways of making the names ‘known’,” he said.

He reminded that, ever since the introduction of the Maltese Citizenship Act, it has been a legal requirement to publish the names of those persons who acquire Maltese citizenship through naturalisation and registration. It seems, that not all jurisdictions follow this rule.

“However, over the past 40 years, the legal regime has changed. Today we are more sensitive to data protection issues. This cannot be swept under the carpet without further discussion. Moreover, how fair – or indeed legitimate – is to publish names of persons registered as Maltese citizens given that they are citizens of this country of equal standing to those who are Maltese through, say, birth? Will this procedure withstand a legal challenge?”

Grima pointed out that all names are published – without distinguishing between naturalisation by marriage or IIP – as not to put a spotlight on the IIP.

“However there is a manifest flaw. More often than not, IIP-based applications for Maltese citizenship involve households. Thus it might still be relatively easy to pinpoint individuals who have a Maltese citizens through the IIP.”

Grima indicated a review of the current process in view of accredited agents stating that some of the individuals seeking to acquire Maltese citizenship because “of the safety of their children, particularly if they hail from certain regimes”.

“This truly seems to be the case in some cases,” Grima added.

The Regulator also noted the “open door policy” adopted by Identity Malta towards his office.

The Citizenship Department

Grima said that a body should be set up to monitor the Citizenship Department (CEA). “While Identity Malta engages in a relative rigorous due diligence process, there does not seem to be the same rigour with respect to issuance of eResidency cards to third country nationals,” he said. Noting that this might be his “perception”, he suggested a body to monitor the department given the numbers involved.

He said, that the remit of the IIP Regulator should be widened to include the workings of the CEA as a whole.

“I am not tabling this proposal for my own benefit; I will be retiring due to age in the not too distant future. Mine is not a recommendation but I still strongly suggest that the government appoints his office as overseer of the whole department.”

Regulatory governance

Grima reiterated a proposal that a forum should be set up, bringing together regulatory bodies on a regular basis with a view to exchanging views, sharing good practices, developing standards, codes of practice and related matters.

The regulatory bodies would be those offices set up offering a range of services for both nationals as well as targeting foreign direct investment.