Malta’s merit-based citizenship framework is taking shape – but key questions remain

Seven months after Malta replaced its controversial citizenship-by-investment scheme with a merit-based model, legal practitioners say the picture is becoming clearer – though the system is still evolving in practice.

When the reforms were first announced, the shift raised fundamental questions about how “exceptional contribution” would be interpreted, how applications would be assessed, and whether the sector itself could survive without a transactional investment element. Conversations held at the time with lawyers Malcolm Mifsud and Veronique Dalli reflected cautious optimism mixed with legal uncertainty.

Now, follow-up discussions with Lawyers Kris Scicluna and Malcolm Mifsud suggest that the framework has moved beyond its early ambiguity, largely due to the operational structures introduced by the Community Malta Agency (CMA).

According to Dr Scicluna, who specialises in litigation, commercial law, insolvency, and complex corporate disputes, the biggest change since the reforms were introduced is that the process has shifted decisively away from a financial transaction model.

He says the system is now more clearly defined as merit-based, with applicants assessed on the real impact they can have on Malta rather than the size of their financial contribution. In practical terms, this has changed the way lawyers approach cases, moving from document-heavy, procedural work towards strategic case-building focused on demonstrating measurable contribution.

A key factor in this transition, he explains, has been the CMA’s operational role. The Agency has provided updated guidelines, checklists, forms and ongoing communication with legal professionals, allowing advisers to better explain expectations to clients and structure applications more effectively.

Dr Mifsud echoes this assessment, noting that clarity has increased since Agenzija Komunità Malta issued concrete procedures, forms and fee structures. For practitioners who initially struggled to interpret what “exceptional” meant in legal terms, these developments have created a clearer starting point.

However, both lawyers agree that clarity does not necessarily mean certainty. The concept of exceptional contribution remains open-ended, and professionals are still learning how far the threshold extends in practice.

The role of discretion remains central

One of the key concerns raised when the reforms were first introduced was the level of ministerial discretion embedded in the law – a point Dr Mifsud had highlighted early on.

Seven months later, that discretion remains. What has changed, according to legal practitioners, is the structure surrounding it.

Dr Mifsud says that while the Minister’s discretion is still present, the process for presenting and filing applications is now more organised, allowing lawyers to shape submissions in a clearer and more consistent manner. Firms are increasingly working with prospective applicants to refine how their contributions are presented before formally applying.

Dr Scicluna similarly describes a system where transparency has improved, allowing lawyers to guide clients with greater confidence, even if ultimate outcomes still depend on sovereign decision-making.

The reforms have also altered how law firms operate within this space.

Under the previous citizenship-by-investment model, much of the workflow revolved around compliance checks, documentation and financial due diligence. The merit-based system, by contrast, requires legal advisers to build a narrative around contribution – whether through job creation, innovation, philanthropy, culture, entrepreneurship or other areas deemed beneficial to Malta.

Dr Scicluna says this has shifted the focus towards long-term planning and evidence gathering, with applications structured around measurable outcomes rather than fixed financial thresholds.

Dr Mifsud describes a similar evolution but adds that there is still an element of trial and error, simply because the concept is new. Professionals are continuing to test how different profiles and contributions are interpreted by the authorities.

Client interest has not disappeared

One of the major questions raised when the reforms were announced was whether demand would fall once citizenship was no longer tied to investment.

Both lawyers suggest that interest has remained stronger than expected.

Dr Scicluna says that clients appear encouraged by the clearer framework and by the possibility of demonstrating meaningful impact rather than simply fulfilling financial requirements. He argues that many applicants view the merit-based system positively because it aligns citizenship with tangible contribution.

Dr Mifsud also confirms that his firm continues to receive enquiries, even without active marketing. However, he stresses that the new framework should not be promoted in the same way as the previous investment-based model, describing it as fundamentally different in nature.

A recurring theme in both conversations is the increasing importance of the Community Malta Agency in shaping the practical application of the law.

Lawyers say the Agency’s willingness to issue memos, guidelines and structured procedures has helped stabilise the system during its early stages. The introduction of an initial expression-of-interest structure, where the Agency can indicate whether a project or contribution aligns with the programme’s objectives, is also seen as helping practitioners manage expectations.

Still, both acknowledge that the framework is likely to continue evolving as more cases are processed and precedent gradually develops.

As more applications move through the system, the lawyers say the real test will be consistency – and whether the emerging model can balance sovereign discretion with predictability for applicants and practitioners alike.