Even though the cash-for-citizenship scheme has been approved by Parliament, objectors are mulling a last-ditch attempt to revoke the programme through an abrogative referendum.
The idea was floated by Alternattiva Demokratika on Tuesday, hours before amendments to the Citizenship Act cleared the last parliamentary hurdle.
In his first reaction immediately after the vote, Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil vowed to carry on the fight, insisting his party was excluding nothing, not even the option of an abrogative referendum.
By law, a request to hold an abrogative referendum has to be backed by 10 per cent of the number of eligible voters.
This would translate to about 35,000 signatures from those whose names appear on the last Electoral Register issued prior to the petition being presented.
However, the Referenda Act states no part of “the Constitution and any regulation made under any provision thereof” may be repealed in this manner.
This article is particularly relevant as chapter three of the Constitution deals specifically with the issue of citizenship, which is central in this argument.
This newspaper sought the views of the dean of the Faculty of Laws, Kevin Aquilina, on whether the proviso could be invoked to challenge a request to hold an abrogative referendum.
Prof. Aquilina said the scheme was enacted through amendments to the Citizenship Act, not the Constitution.
It would be perfectly legal to have an abrogative referendum to repeal the programme because the law in question was not covered by the exceptions listed in article 13(2) of the Referenda Act.
AD chairman Arnold Cassola told Times of Malta the call to hold a referendum was on the same lines of that made at the height of the divorce campaign and, more recently, to ban spring hunting.
Asked about the possibility of a united front with the Nationalist Party, Prof. Cassola said it wanted to create a nationwide coalition embracing people with different political views, much like the divorce and hunting issues.
This goes against the spirit of what it means to be a citizen of Europe
“This is not a political issue but one in which civil society and the public must be at the forefront,” he said. “Our vision is to have a coalition spearheading this campaign rather than a political force.”
The issue has been raised in the European Parliament with Nationalist MEP Roberta Metsola seeking clarifications if it was in line with European rules and the spirit of European treaties.
In a parliamentary question, Dr Metsola said the new law would create a concept of ‘secret citizens’ that would lead to a different level of citizenship both in Malta and in the EU.
“This goes against the spirit of what it means to be a citizen of Europe,” she said.
She sought clarifications whether citizens could lose their right to passport-free travel in the Schengen area, citing the warning issued against Montenegro following an attempt to introduce a similar scheme.
Dr Metsola wanted reassurances on any possible risks the scheme could pose in the fight against organised crime, money laundering and terrorism at an EU level.
The Malta Employers Association expressed concern that the scheme lacked transparency and could tarnish Malta’s reputation as a trustworthy country, especially in the financial services sector.