Attorney General Peter Grech told the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee this afternoon that Malta's accession to Partnership for Peace in 1995 and its subsequent withdraw in 1996 did not fall within the requirements of the Ratification of Treaties Act.

Dr Grech was giving a presentation to the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee which was continuing to debate an opposition motion calling for the resignation of Richard Cachia Caruana for reportedly discussing PfP membership behind parliament's back in 2004. The government has denied the claims, saying the talks were on access to security documents.

Dr Grech said that no reference to the Ratification of Treaties Act had been made when Malta (under the PN government) signed the Partnership for Peace Framework Document in 1995, when Malta withdrew from PfP in 1996 (under Labour) and when it rejoined in 2008 (under the PN).

It was only now that the issue was being raised as to whether the framework document fell within the Ratification of Treaties Act.

Dr Grech said that the framework document did not have the form of a regular treaty. It did not impose specific requirements on Malta, which was only agreeing to cooperate with other countries within the partnership under conditions which it set for itself.

One could argue that membership of PfP was valid on the strength of a parliamentary resolution in 1995. But if that was the case,  and if this was viewed as being a treaty, then the termination of PfP membership in 1996 without recourse to parliament was defective. If the termination was defective, reactivation of PfP membership in 2008 did not need to go through parliament.

Dr Grech said that in his opinion at Attorney General, the various actions over the years were legal and valid and did not fall within the requirements of the Ratification of Treaties Act.  

Replying to a question by Labour MP George Vella said the Security Agreement (the security of documents agreement) which formed part of the PfP membership documents did not require ratification as it was not an agreement between states. 

Dr Vella noted how the government in 2004 had wanted to use the Security Agreement for access to security documents despite Malta having left PfP. He asked how one could proceed with the Security Agreement once Malta had left PfP. Furthermore, the agreement in its preamble said "We heads of government..." which indicated that this was an agreement between states. Furthermore, this agreement was very important - a sovereign country was agreeing to share sensitive security information.

Committee chairman Francis Zammit Dimech said one could not have debates with the witness.

Dr Vella said MPs were justified in wondering whether the legal interpretation was just.

Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said the AG had interpreted the law as it was, while Dr Vella could make his own political arguments.

Replying to further questions, Dr Grech said his legal interpretation of the law was that the security agreement did not fall within the definitions of the Security of Treaties Act. The Act spoke of treaties between states but this was a  treaty with an international organisation.

Dr Vella protested that this was an agreement with other states and the preamble said "We the heads of state and government..."

Dr Zammit Dimech again said that there should not be arguments with the witness.

Dr Luciano Busuttil (PL) asked if the AG's advice had been sought in 2008 over whether ratification was needed for Malta to rejoin PfP.

Dr Grech said he found no documents to show such advice was requested.

Dr Busuttil asked Dr Grech to confirm that Nato was formed of sovereign states.

Dr Grech said that should not deflect the fact that the security agreement was an agreement with an organisation.

Dr Busuttil said the Nato secretary general must have needed the consent of the member countries to sign the security agreement.

Dr Zammit Dimech said the AG could not be expected to say how the Nato Secretary General had acted.

Dr Busuttil said one would need to establish if a person was authorised to sign...

Dr Grech said an organisation had a different juridical personality than individual states  in the same way as there was a difference between a company and its individual shareholders. The treaty was between Malta and Nato as an organisation. It was not a treaty between states.

See the AG's presentation in the pdf link below.