The armorial bearings newly devised and used by the "Office of the Chief Herald of Malta".
You may be aware that earlier in the year I had been asked by Dr Danielle Mallia, Chief Investigating Officer at the Office of the Government Ombudsman (Malta), to respond to the FAQs posted on the website of the Chief Herald of Arms of Malta.
The full details of my forensic examination of the FAQs is available here: Examination into the claims of the "Chief Herald of Malta".
In this response, I believe that I have been able to amply demonstrate that the Chief Herald has failed to prove that he, and therefore by definition, Heritage Malta, have the powers to regulate heraldry and to grant new armorial bearings or to register and or matriculate existing foreign armorial bearings that have no cultural or heritage connection with Malta; that the powers of Heritage Malta, as set down in the Act of its creation, are limited to the recording, preservations and promotion of Malta’s cultural heritage and that neither the Prime Minister, or the Cabinet, or any one Minister, have the powers to act in this matter without the consent of Parliament.
I believe that whoever had the idea of creating a Chief Herald of Malta made an error and, in presenting the idea to the Cabinet, either overlooked or ignored the requirements set out in Section 10 of the Act setting out the powers of Heritage Malta which states quite clearly that matters pertaining to National Strategy for Cultural Heritage should be set out in a paper which will be tabled in Parliament for discussion. This would mean that all acts undertaken by the Chief Herald are ultra vires, have no foundation in law and are therefore void.
There has, since my initial post, been an exchange of correspondence so I thought that you might appreciate an update. I have posted a note of the progress so far here:
How immensely interesting.
ReplyDelete