It took six-and-a-half months, several complaints to the Data Protection Commissioner and numerous articles to get there, but the government has finally replied to a Freedom of Information (FoI) request made in January.

But arguably, the answer to The Malta Independent on Sunday’s question – who advised the government on citizenship schemes before the public service concession won by Henley & Partners was issued – raises more questions than it answers.

A 27-word reply – which means that on average, the government needed a week per word to answer our question – confirmed that the only entity which advised the government on citizenship before Henley & Partners were brought in were PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) (Malta).

Appropriately enough, PwC did not end up bidding for the public service concession it advised the government on: the losing bidders were Arton Capital and KPMG. However, it was specifically mentioned by Prime Minister Joseph Muscat as one of the agents of for the Individual Investor Programme (IIP).

Arton Capital, however, has instituted legal proceedings in which it is asking the courts to annul the contract between the government and Henley & Partners due to a conflict of interest: it insists that Henley did provide advice before winning the contract.

Not so, according to the ministry’s reply.

But this does not explain the unique programme which was devised by Malta: the role of concessionaire exists nowhere else on earth.

Coincidentally, however, such a system was proposed by Henley & Partners in Antigua and Barbuda, only for that country’s senate to reject the plan.

How the government came up with an identical system – one would assume it would rather opt for a tried and tested programme if it sought to emulate other schemes – remains unexplained. While PwC’s advice would inevitably be confidential, it appears unlikely that the company would suggest a system it was not familiar with.

Unfortunately, the Freedom of Information Act cannot be invoked to obtain an answer for the next logical question: did anyone pitch citizenship programmes to the Labour Party before the 2013 general election, and on whose behalf?

This newspaper did ask these questions to Labour’s communications coordinator on 15 January – the day after the FoI request was made to the government. However, this email – in what appears to be the default response from the party – was ignored.

That individuals have been lobbying for the introduction of citizenship schemes is already known: the previous government had refused a number of proposals, although the identity of the individuals or companies pitching such schemes remains unknown.

Labour, on the other hand, has chosen to remain silent.

The IIP was not included in its electoral manifesto, but the new Labour government’s decision to issue a public service concession after just three months in government does suggest that the plans to develop such a programme had been conceived before the election took place.