The Civil Court in in its Constitutional capacity has rejected a Moroccan woman’s contest of a decision by the Foreign Minister to strip her of her Maltese citizenship after her marriage to a Maltese was annulled.
Fatiha Khallouf said her Maltese citizenship was struck off on May 2, 2011 and she ended up stateless because she had previously renounced her Moroccan citizenship since dual citizenship was not possible.
She pleaded that when she applied for Maltese citizenship she was legally married and she was granted citizenship in terms of the law in force at the time. She argued that removal of citizenship was in breach of her human rights and local and EU law.
The woman married in April 1996 and applied for Maltese citizenship in that month. She separated from her husband in October 1997. In July 1998 she had a son from another man.
The marriage was declared null in October 2000.
In 2001 Italy requested the woman’s extradition to face charges of association to traffic migrants. Between 2003-2004 she served a year’s jail term after being convicted by a court in Ragusa.
Back in Malta, a Maltese court convicted her for trafficking heroin and she was imprisoned.
Her citizenship was revoked in 2010.
The Minister of Foreign Affairs argued in court that the decision to withdraw her citizenship was taken in line with the Citizenship Act after another court had declared the woman’s marriage to a Maltese to be null and void. It had resulted that the only reason for the marriage was to enable the woman to work here.
The minister denied there was a breach of human rights or the European Convention and said the obligation of the state was to respect the right for family life and not to give a right to any person to establish or continue family life in a particular jurisdiction. Furthermore, the convention did not protect the right of a person to live in any particular member state .
The court found in favour of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and decided that citizenship had been acquired in a fraudulent manner and the presentation of false facts as shown in the court’s previous decision to annul the marriage.
The court therefore upheld the Foreign Minister’s decision.