The Maltese government's recently enacted reform on magisterial inquiries has drawn sharp condemnation from legal experts, civil society, and the Nationalist Party, who describe it as a serious erosion of democratic principles and a blatant attempt to insulate those in power from judicial scrutiny.
Framed by the government as a necessary update to prevent abuse of the legal system, the legislation - Bill No. 125 - is instead widely viewed as a calculated effort to dismantle one of the last remaining tools of public accountability in a system increasingly perceived as compromised.
The reform changes the way magisterial inquiries - independent investigations led by magistrates to gather and preserve evidence of possible crimes - can be requested. Previously, any citizen could directly approach a magistrate with a request. This was an essential safeguard in a democratic society, especially in a country where institutions are often accused of turning a blind eye to corruption. The process was never meant to replace police investigations or the courts, but rather to ensure that evidence of wrongdoing could be secured, especially in high-profile or politically sensitive cases where trust in the police was low.
Under the new law, however, this direct access has been stripped away. Citizens must now file a police report before requesting an inquiry. Only if the police fail to act within six months can the matter be brought before a judge- bypassing magistrates altogether. In addition, the citizen must present admissible evidence, that is, material that would be accepted in a court of law, not just information pointing to suspicious or unlawful activity. This is a profound change in how justice is initiated and monitored in Malta, and one that critics say sets an unreasonably high bar for ordinary people, especially in cases where the wrongdoing involves state institutions or actors close to power.
Professor Kevin Aquilina, one of Malta's foremost legal scholars, has described the reform as a "fatal torpedoing of the rule of law". In an article published in The Malta Independent on Sunday, he warned that the new law removes essential legal protections and embeds a culture of impunity into Maltese law. His scathing critique points to what many see as the bill's real intention: to protect political allies and prevent future legal accountability following a string of damaging inquiries.
Indeed, the timing of the reform is no coincidence. In the past year, two major magisterial inquiries came to a head, sending shockwaves through the country's political establishment. One dealt with the controversial concession of three public hospitals to a private company - a deal annulled by the courts. Charges against former Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, former ministers Konrad Mizzi, Chris Fearne, and Edward Scicluna, as well as former OPM Chief of Staff Keith Schembri.
The second revolved around 17 Black, a company linked to alleged corruption in the Electrogas power station project. Mizzi and Schembri are among those charged here too.
The political fallout was immense. With more inquiries being requested, including into sitting ministers, Prime Minister Robert Abela moved swiftly to curb the process. The government framed the legislation as a necessary reform to protect citizens from unjust legal harassment. At a press conference following the bill's first reading on 29 January 2025, Abela claimed that the current system was being "abused" and had become a "tool of persecution" against innocent people and businesses. He positioned the bill as a corrective measure to prevent what he said were frivolous or politically motivated inquiries from being used to damage reputations.
However, few outside the government accepted this explanation. The Opposition immediately voiced its dissent, voting against the bill at the first reading - a rare move given that the bill's full text had not yet been published. Opposition leader Bernard Grech made it clear that his party would oppose the law at every stage, citing deep mistrust of the government's motives and the dangerous precedent the bill could set.
Civil society organisations were just as vocal. Repubblika, Moviment Graffitti, the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, and other groups warned that the reform would erode Malta's already weakened capacity to investigate corruption. They called for a white paper and genuine public consultation before any legal changes were made.
The timing of the debate only deepened the controversy. As the bill was making its way through Parliament, Transparency International published its latest corruption index, ranking Malta among the worst in the EU with a score of 46 out of 100, ahead of only Hungary and Bulgaria. Rather than serving as a wake-up call, the government brushed it off and pressed forward. Critics viewed this as a telling sign that the reform was less about improving governance and more about entrenching control.
In addition to the procedural barriers introduced - like police involvement and admissible proof - the reform includes a punitive clause: if a court deems an inquiry request "frivolous" or "vexatious," the citizen who filed it can be held liable for the entire cost of the inquiry. Given that such investigations can cost thousands, if not millions, this provision alone is expected to have a chilling effect on whistleblowers and public-spirited citizens, who may now be too fearful to come forward with legitimate concerns.
Another major point of criticism is the reduction of judicial independence. Where magistrates once held the authority to decide whether or not to initiate an inquiry, their role has now been sidelined. The Attorney General - a politically appointed figure - has been given oversight, including the exclusive power to extend inquiry timelines beyond the new two-year limit. Critics say this consolidates too much control in a single office, undermining the separation of powers and weakening safeguards against executive overreach.
Despite objections from legal experts, NGOs, and the Opposition, the government pushed the law through. On 2 April, the bill passed its final stage in Parliament, and on 11 April, it was signed into law by the President. Repubblika had even made a direct appeal to the President to withhold assent, an extraordinary move underscoring the level of public concern. She chose to sign the law, saying that the "Constitution is clear", forgetting that another option for her could have been to resign.
What the government has achieved through this reform is not judicial improvement but institutional regression. It has taken one of the last effective tools of public oversight and placed it behind legal, procedural, and financial barriers. The ability of ordinary people to challenge corruption, misconduct, and abuse of power has been significantly curtailed.
In a functioning democracy, justice must be accessible, independent, and insulated from political influence. This law moves Malta further away from those ideals. It makes it next to impossible for citizens to request an inquiry, hands more power to political appointees, and raises the cost - literal and figurative - of seeking the truth. Far from safeguarding the innocent, the reform protects the powerful, and in doing so, chips away at the very foundations of democratic governance.
Chronology
29 January 2025
First Reading in Parliament
Bill No. 125, proposing significant reforms to magisterial inquiries, is introduced in Parliament. The Opposition votes against it during the First Reading, despite not having seen the full text. Opposition leader Bernard Grech states they are voting against it based on principle and concerns over the government's intentions.
30 January
Government clarifies intentions
Prime Minister Robert Abela and Justice Minister Jonathan Attard hold a press conference to outline the bill's objectives. Abela asserts that the reform aims to prevent the abuse of the current system, which he claims is being used to unjustly target innocent individuals through prolonged legal proceedings.
February-March
Public and institutional response:
Legal experts, civil society organisations, and the Opposition express concerns over the bill. Professor of Law Kevin Aquilina is among those who publicly criticises the bill as detrimental to the rule of law. NGOs, including Repubblika, the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, and Moviment Graffitti, call for a white paper and public consultation, warning that the proposed changes could weaken anti-corruption efforts.
12 March
Government ploughs on
The House of Representatives voted in favour of propelling Bill 125 towards its next legislative stage.
The vote went through with 40 votes in favour of the Bill, 31 votes against, and zero abstentions. 71 of the 79 MPs were present for this vote.
Government MPs voted in favour of the Bill, while PN MPs voted against.
2 April 2025
Parliamentary approval
Despite ongoing criticism, the bill passes its final reading in Parliament. The Opposition continues to oppose the bill, arguing that it restricts citizens' rights and may protect corrupt officials. Government MPs contend that the reform seeks to balance the judicial process.
11 April 2025
Presidential assent
The President signs the bill into law, officially enacting the new regulations governing the initiation of magisterial inquiries. This concludes the legislative process, bringing the proposed reforms into effect.