Attorney General Peter Grech has declared that Malta’s participation in the Partnership for Peace programme in 1995, its withdrawal in 1996 and its reactivation in 2008 did not fall within the requirements of the Ratification of Treaties Act.

The document did not include any clauses referring to a treaty or convention

He added that no government had made any reference to the Act during this time.

Dr Grech was making a presentation to the House Foreign and European Affairs Committee which yesterday ended its debate on the opposition motion calling for the resignation of Malta’s EU permanent representative Richard Cachia Caruana for reportedly acting behind Parliament’s back in 2004 on PfP membership.

The government has vehemently rejected the claim, saying that the talks referred to in the motion focused only on access to security documents.

Parliament is to have a four-hour debate on the motion in plenary session next Monday.

Dr Grech said this was the first time that the issue of whether the PfP framework document was a treaty or not was being raised. The document did not include any clauses referring to a treaty or convention. He adhered to the legal interpretation that participation in the PfP, and its termination, were valid and did not fall under the Ratification of Treaties Act but was at the discretion of the government.

George Vella (PL) asked whether the advice of the AG’s office had been sought by the government on the ratification of the agreement in 1995.

Dr Grech said he had not found any documents pertaining to this request. It was common practice for advice to be requested and given verbally, especially during meetings. The only documented advice referred to the issue of whether PfP membership infringed on Malta’s neutrality.

Dr Vella spoke on the framework agreement noting that it referred to “Heads of State” in its preamble, indicating that this was an agreement between states. How could Malta enter into a security agreement once it had terminated participation in the PfP, asked Dr Vella.

The security agreement was considered important because countries were sharing military and other sensitive security information. He claimed that this meant it was a treaty among member states and as such required Parliament’s ratification.

Committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech replied that the Ratification Act referred to certain treaties between states and not with international organisations. The AG’s advice was that this agreement did not need ratification.

He added that committee members could not enter into a political debate with the witness.

Foreign Minister Tonio Borg interjected, saying that the AG was only giving a legal interpretation. Dr Vella could make his political argument on whether the government should have gone to Parliament or not.

Dr Grech said that legally it was clear that the security of documents agreement was excluded from the Ratification Act under clause one, which specified that treaties had to be among states.

Asked by Dr Borg whether the security agreement referred only to documents and not to the security of the country in the military sense of the word, Dr Grech replied that he understood this as security clearance.

He said that it was a matter of degrees on how to interpret whether the agreement affected Malta’s security.

Asked by Luciano Busuttil (PL) to confirm that Nato was made up of sovereign countries and its Secretary General needed authorisation to sign the agreement, Dr Grech replied that Nato was an international organisation and as such had a different juridical personality than individual states.

Dr Zammit Dimech said that the member could not ask for the AG’s opinion on what Nato’s Secretary General did or did not do.

The Attorney General said that ratification would be required if member states signed individually. If the treaty was among states the wording would have been different. This was not the case as the treaty was between Malta and Nato.

In reply to questions put by Leo Brincat (PL) on whether side notes were written on verbal advice given by the AG’s office, Dr Grech replied that in the past the AG’s office kept a register on advice given. He had never seen this register.

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.