A father of seven who spent 20 years in Malta living illegally has lost a legal bid to remain in the country, with a court rejecting his claims that a removal order breached his fundamental rights.

The Egyptian man, whose name is not being disclosed to safeguard the identity of his children still living in Malta, had filed a constitutional application claiming that an order issued by the Principal Immigration Officer for his repatriation, breached his right to private and family life and amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. 

He was deported from Malta earlier this year, before the case was decided. 

The man had fathered seven children with his wife.

Their relationship later broke down after his wife had sought refuge at a domestic violence shelter in 2016, following several episodes of domestic violence. She had taken her four minor children, aged 11, nine, seven and five with her and ultimately been granted care and custody of them by the courts. 

The man then obtained a divorce in 2017 and subsequently married another woman. 

In June 2013, the man ended up in jail and authorities had ordered that he be returned to Egypt. 

The man had attempted to challenge that order before the Immigration Appeals Board which, two years ago, had throw out his claim. An application to the Refugee Appeals Board had also proved unsuccessful, meaning that the applicant was denied refugee status. 

Meanwhile, the man instituted constitutional proceedings claiming that the order to remove him from the island where he had spent the past 20 years, breached his rights. 

He argued that he considered himself as a Maltese citizen and would find it difficult to get family and economic support back in his country of origin.  

However, on the basis of all evidence put forward, the First Hall, Civil Court, presided over by Mr Justice Grazio Mercieca, found that authorities’ actions had been lawful and justified. 

The applicant, though claiming to work hard for his family, had in fact worked “sporadically”, hopping from one job to another, generally on a part-time basis.  

All this was proved by his employment history, the court observed, adding that the wife was in fact the breadwinner. Her former husband had failed to pay maintenance allowance and also objected to his children’s schooling.  

Moreover, the man had manifested an unruly character, prone to criminal behaviour, said the court, adding that his “history of repeated criminal actions posed a serious threat to public security and the right of every individual to live in Malta without fear and peacefully.”  

“It could scarcely be said that he had played a central and important role in the exemplary upbringing of his children,” the court remarked, finding the applicant’s claim of breach of family life most “repugnant.” 

The man’s actions had landed his family in a precarious situation, said the court. 

The Maltese authorities had done their job “patiently” and their actions certainly did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, concluded the court, thus throwing out the applicant’s claims. 

The court also noted that the removal order had since been enforced.