I understand why Dmitry Kochenov, a consultant to Henley and Partners, would make the comments he did (February 11). I agree there should not be criticism of “countries that offer citizenship for a significant investment in the country in a perfectly transparent way”.

Kochenov, who forgot to be transparent about his association with Henley, and I have made a living from representing investor immigrant clients to governments. When it comes to Malta, the “popular critique” is not of a transparent investment system as the Maltese IIP is the least transparent in the world.

Malta is the first country where the government does not trust itself to manage its own citizenship programme and hired an offshore company from Jersey to do it for them. Why a concessionaire is needed, how he was chosen and what is in his contract are all secrets.

The head of Henley dared tell a former government minister live on radio that the concession was a matter of national security (which shockingly means offshore companies can be privy to matters of national security but parliamentarians cannot).

Why the concessionaire was not fired after embarrassing the Prime Minister and the government so much that the IIP had to be rewritten four times is also a secret. All we know is that the concessionaire will be given control of all money to be paid for citizenship and can do anything with it for up to two years. Will this include paying into slush funds, just as they have been accused of doing by important politicians in other countries? The concessionaire can make up to €200 million, which should be going to the government and the people of Malta.

Until the government answers these and other questions, the IIP will give rise to suspicion.