When the Individual Investment Programme was launched late in 2013, it immediately gave rise to controversy. Many viewed it as a less than reputable way to sell Maltese citizenship to those who wanted easy access to free movement within the EU. At the time, the government insisted that the programme was “not an over-the-counter sale of citizenship” and that applicants have to go through a due diligence screening process.

Eventually, the citizenship programme was approved after the government promised that the due diligence process would be transparent and all measures would be taken to protect Malta’s reputation.

The European Commission, which initially was not happy with the implications of this programme, ultimately stated that “member states have full sovereignty to decide how and to whom they grant full nationality”.

Maltese citizens have every right to decide whether in the past 18 months the process of granting Maltese citizenship has indeed been transparent as promised by the Prime Minister. The government softened opposition to the programme partly by appointing a monitoring committee to ensure that the original aims – attracting bona fide investors – were being achieved.

The IIP monitoring committee has only met once, in October 2014. Yet, the government announced “it had approved the first 13 foreigners to become Maltese citizens through the IIP”. When this newspaper asked for details about these new citizens, their original nationality and other relevant details, the Prime Minister’s Office declined to provide any information.

Transparency is an essential element of good government. It promotes accountability and informs citizens about what their government is doing.

Under governance that is truly transparent, effective and accountable, citizens have access to crucial information on how the government operates, establishes priorities and makes decisions. When a monitoring committee headed by the Prime Minister himself and with the grave responsibility of protecting Malta’s reputation internationally fails to meet regularly and cooperate with the media to pass on relevant information, one is more than justified in asking why the government is not showing trust in the people it was elected to serve.

Projects in recent months have given the impression that the government is prepared to sacrifice on the altar of economic growth many things that make us what we are as a nation. This is not just a sentimental notion nurtured by tree huggers and those who suffer from old fashioned nostalgia that makes them live in the past.

Malta’s has a fragile reputation as a respectable centre where one can do business without much red tape but with strict adherence to good governance practices and business ethics. This trust can be badly shaken if the government is less than fully transparent and creates suspicion that it is bending the rules to accommodate business interests not really bona fide.

In many jurisdictions, Malta already has to struggle to shake off the unfair image of being a tax haven or, worse, a money laundering centre in the Mediterranean. People have the right to know who is being granted Maltese citizenship and what kind of business activities these ‘new citizens’ are engaged in. The IIP monitoring committee must act with more transparency as the last thing Malta and the government needs is another controversy on initiatives taken on the pretext of economic growth.