Malta’s citizenship scheme is the only one on earth in which the programme is managed by a private sector concessionaire – yet this role had been envisioned before this concessionaire was identified.
But was this role created on the government’s initiative, or did any experts – or companies – advise it?
The Malta Independent has filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act to find out just that, asking for a list of entities and/or individuals who advised the government on citizenship programmes prior to the issuing of a call for expressions of interest on June 21, which led to the signing of a contract – which is being kept secret, save for a small extract – with Henley & Partners.
Similar questions – although, of course, the Freedom of Information Act does not apply in this case – were made to the Labour Party, in case this advice was received before the 2013 general election.
As outlined in the call for expressions of interest, the concessionaire was ultimately responsible for designing and implementing the programme, a task which included setting the contributions applicants would have to make to acquire “fast-tracked citizenship”.
But the basic structure of the programme had already been established in the dossier, and this already sets out an unprecedented system – including by establishing the role of a concessionaire going far beyond simply designing the scheme.
“The government is seeking to concede rights for the design, set-up, implementation, operation and international promotion of an IIP to a qualified and experienced Concessionaire that must have proven expertise and prior experience in the field of citizenship-by-investment, including the design, implementation and international promotion of such programmes,” the dossier reads.
No other country operating similar programmes has granted such a role to a private company, although Antigua and Barbuda came close to doing so – coincidentally, with the involvement of Henley & Partners.
But the proposed Antiguan programme proved to be controversial, and Henley’s role was reduced considerably in the final approved version of the programme. The company was given a six-month consultancy contract which expired last month, and the Antiguan government opted to build its own capacity instead.
That controversy appears to have been overlooked in Malta, where Henley was awarded a 10-year contract with the opportunity to extend it for a further 10.
Whether the Antiguan failed proposal inspired the Maltese programme remains to be seen, but what is perhaps more pertinent is whether the government sought advice from any experts on citizenship programmes before forging ahead with its call for expressions of interest.
If it has, whoever advised the government – or, possibly, the Labour Party – suggested the development of a programme which was only attempted unsuccessfully once, with the assistance of Henley & Partners, and implemented nowhere.
There is a clear conflict of interest at play if Henley & Partners itself provided this advice – as losing bidder Arton Capital alleged in a court application – and won a highly lucrative contract as a result.
In correspondence that was featured in last Sunday’s edition of this newspaper, Canadian immigration expert and Apex Capital Partners president Nuri Katz pointed out that the law itself may have gifted Henley millions in interest fees alone by allowing it to hold on to applicants’ contributions until a certificate of naturalisation is issued – which will require six to 24 months.
The law does not mention any escrow arrangements that may be in place, and does not, by itself, prohibit Henley from using the money any way it deems fit before handing it over.