In November of this year, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) will reach a significant milestone, its 75th anniversary. Since its adoption in Rome on 4 November, 1950, the Convention has been instrumental in shaping human rights law and practice across Europe. Coming into force on 3 September, 1953, it represented a major step forward for the protection of individual freedoms and rights in Europe. The Convention has been credited with ensuring that many of the key human rights enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights were not only proclaimed but also made legally binding for its member states.

For 75 years, the ECHR has served as a cornerstone of human rights protection across the continent, binding states to a set of common values and legal principles that ensure the protection of individual liberties, from freedom of speech to the right to a fair trial. For smaller countries such as Malta, which ratified the Convention in January 1967 and extended the right of individual petition and compulsory jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in 1987, the Convention has been seen as a safeguard against potential governmental over-reach, ensuring that individual freedoms are protected even when domestic laws may not align with international human rights standards.

But now, as this 75-year milestone is about to be reached, the Convention is under a new threat. Prime Minister Robert Abela has floated the idea of "reforming" the ECHR. The fact that this suggestion was made at a recent summit discussing migration in Brussels raises serious concerns about the potential direction of such reforms. While details about the proposed reform remain scarce, the mere idea of altering the Convention, especially in the context of migration, introduces a significant risk to the very foundation upon which the ECHR stands: the protection of human rights, regardless of nationality, legal status, or race.

The Prime Minister's proposal

Abela's proposal was made during a meeting on migration with European leaders, and the lack of clarity about what reforming the Convention actually means only adds to the anxiety surrounding the suggestion. The Department of Information's statement indicated that Malta will place this issue on the agenda of the Council of Europe when it assumes the presidency in May. The Council of Europe is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the ECHR. However, this proposal raises a number of alarming questions.

Most notably, Abela's comments were made in the context of an ongoing debate about the European Union's handling of irregular migration. European leaders have been discussing proposals that would, among other things, outsource migrant detention centres to third countries for rejected asylum seekers. This proposal has been widely criticised by human rights organisations, which argue that it violates international law and human rights standards. Abela's suggestion that the ECHR could be reformed in this context raises legitimate questions about whether the Prime Minister is seeking to dilute the human rights protections afforded to migrants.

Given that Malta has been at the centre of the migration debate in the Mediterranean for many years, Abela's remarks suggest that the proposed reform could be an attempt to carve out greater flexibility for states to manage migration without being constrained by human rights considerations. Critics said this could potentially result in the erosion of fundamental protections for migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers who are already among the most vulnerable people in the world.

In this sense, Abela's proposal may be seen as part of a broader trend of countries in Europe seeking to limit the scope of human rights protections when dealing with migration. The issue of migration has become increasingly politicised, with many leaders pushing for more restrictive policies that prioritise national security over the protection of individual rights. Reforming the ECHR to allow for greater state discretion in handling migration could therefore undermine one of the core principles of the Convention: that human rights are universal and apply to all individuals, regardless of their legal status.

The lack of transparency and the politics of convenience

One of the most troubling aspects of Abela's remarks is the lack of transparency surrounding the proposed reform. According to the Department of Information, the leaders present at the meeting were "interested" in Malta's proposal, but no specifics were provided regarding what changes the Prime Minister envisions.

If the reform is indeed related solely to migration, as the timing of the proposal suggests, it is troubling that such a sensitive issue is being discussed in a way that seems to lack proper consultation or debate. Reforming a document that has been the cornerstone of human rights protection for three-quarters of a century is no small matter, and it is concerning that such a suggestion is being made without sufficient clarity.

Furthermore, the fact that reforming the ECHR was not part of Malta's agenda for its upcoming presidency of the Council of Europe only adds to the sense that this proposal is being made on a whim. It was only last month that Foreign Minister Ian Borg outlined the priorities for the country's presidency, which include youth empowerment, the protection of children, combating violence and discrimination, and safeguarding human rights. Not once did the topic of reforming the Convention come up. This makes Abela's sudden proposal seem even more out of place and raises questions about whether it is simply a political manoeuvre designed to please certain factions on the international stage, rather than a genuine, well-thought-out policy initiative.

The risks of reforming the ECHR: A dangerous precedent

Reforming a 75-year-old Convention that has served as a fundamental pillar of human rights protection for Europe is not something that should be taken lightly. The ECHR provides a framework for safeguarding individual rights against the potential excesses of state power, and any attempt to lower those protections could have serious consequences. A weakening of the ECHR would set a dangerous precedent for future human rights protections and would likely embolden populist movements across Europe that seek to undermine the universality of human rights.

Malta has a responsibility to uphold the highest standards of human rights protection. The Prime Minister's proposal to reform the Convention should be met with scepticism. Reforming the ECHR is not something that can be done with little thought or for political convenience. It requires a deep and serious commitment to the principles of justice, equality, and human dignity.

The reactions

Nationalist Party: After seizing control of the institutions, taking over public broadcasting, pushing forward legislation that limits a citizen's right to request a magisterial inquiry, and attempting to silence the Opposition in Parliament, Robert Abela is now telling us that he wants to reform the Convention on Human Rights. Given that, for Robert Abela, the word "reform" often means dismantling what currently exists, the PN called on Abela to clearly and immediately explain what he means by this statement. Robert Abela is continuing to threaten the very pillars of democracy in our country, the PN said.

Momentum: "This is a very serious declaration by Robert Abela and he needs to explain what he means by it and exactly what amendments he means to propose," chairperson Arnold Cassola said.

"It is very disappointing that Abela seems to be pandering to right-wing populist rhetoric, abandoning once again the social roots which are supposed to guide his Labour government. We would like to recall the fact that many innocent people, including very young children, have lost their lives in risky voyages across the Mediterranean while the Maltese government seems to be implementing an unwritten policy of ignoring its human rights obligations and turning a blind eye and deaf ear to all requests for assistance from migrants in distress in the Mediterranean."

ADPD: It is dangerous that the Prime Minister is trying to please by aligning himself with the Far Right and neo-fascists, like Meloni and Salvini in Italy, Orban in Hungary and the Dutch Far Right. It would be a shame if, during Malta's presidency of the Council of Europe, the doors are opened for fundamental human rights to be eroded. It would be a real shame if the Prime Minister opens the door to hatred, lies and attacks on human freedoms.

Repubblika: We reject in its entirety the idea expressed by Prime Minister Robert Abela that human rights conventions written are now outdated and need to be changed to bring them up to date with what he calls the reality of migration today.

Human rights are fundamental: which means that they are part of human dignity and that their violation constitutes inhumane treatment of victims and inhumane behaviour of those who carry them out.

Human rights are inalienable: which means that they are not a gift given by the government that can be denied, taken away or reduced when government policy changes.

Human rights are universal: which means that they apply to everyone without discrimination on the basis of citizenship, nationality, or race.

Aditus: The Prime Minister has revealed shocking ignorance when saying that human rights are only for persons who 'merit' them. It is indeed extremely worrying and embarrassing that the incoming Chair of the Council of Europe actively opts for populism, exclusion and sheer obliviousness. We are concerned that the Prime Minister seems more interested in pleasing his fascist colleagues leading other European States, rather than confirming Malta's unwavering commitment to fundamental human rights for everyone.  The Prime Minister needs to revise his law notes. He will be reminded that all persons are born equal in dignity and in rights. That we are not required to do anything to 'merit' our human rights. That it is not up to States to decide who is and who is not entitled to enjoy fundamental human rights.

Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation: "It is disturbing that the incoming Council of Europe president is planning to revise the European Convention on Human Rights while claiming that Malta will continue to fight for human rights as long as they are 'merited'. Malta's inhumane policy towards migrants is not new, but tampering with the ECHR to deny human rights is a new low. We remind Abela, as Prime Minister and as incoming Council of Europe president, that human rights are universal and indivisible."