The term ‘residence’ does not mean someone’s physical presence on the island but permitted periods outside the country, according to the Constitutional Court.

In a judgment handed down by Mr Justice Tonio Mallia in March 2003, reference is made to a book called Conflict of Laws in which the author, Graveson, defines residency as “a habitual physical presence in a place during a period of either limited or unlimited duration”.

Mr Justice Mallia had made this observation in a case Alternattiva Demokratika chairman Arnold Cassola had filed against the then general secretary of the Labour Party, who had filed an application in court for Prof. Cassola’s name to be struck off the electoral register because of the time he had spent away from the island.

Mr Magro’s court case, in the midst of the hotly contested EU referendum, was also an attempt to stop Prof. Cassola from standing in the general election.

But Mr Justice Mallia noted that residency, as laid down in the Constitution of Malta, did not require someone’s physical and continuous presence in a country but a habitual presence according to the person’s circumstances.

According to Article 57 of the Constitution, a person qualifies to be registered as a voter if “he is resident in Malta and has during the 18 months immediately preceding his registration been a resident for a continuous period of six months or for periods amounting in the aggregate to six months.”

This provision, according to Mr Justice Mallia, amounted to a habitual presence on the island.

The Constitution also states that this provision does not apply to a person who is ordinarily a resident in Malta but has not been residing here “by reason of service abroad in the public service”.

It was on these two points that Prof. Cassola won the case and therefore retained his right to vote and contest elections in Malta.