A system built for shadows: Malta's democracy through the lens of political finance
A May 2026 report by the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation laid out the mechansim in plain terms: hidden money and behind-the-scenes influence warp political decision-making. The result is disproportionate power for a select few, while voters remain uninformed about the forces shaping policies that affect their daily lives.
The numbers back the claim. Since 2016, Malta's two main political parties have received nearly €30 million in donations, with less than 1% coming from publicly named donors. The majority of these funds fall within legal brackets where donor identities are recorded by parties but never made public, between €500 and €7,000, or are collected at fundraising events without donor identification, under €50.
Malta stands as the only EU member state that does not provide direct public funding to its political parties. This dependence on private money creates an environment where parties may feel obligated to donors, raising concerns about the integrity of political decisions.
What the 2026 election revealed
The 2026 general election offered a rare glimpse into campaign spending. Malta's 52 elected MPs declared a combined €734,734 in campaign expenditure, with Labour Party candidates outspending Nationalist Party candidates significantly.
But the declarations also exposed gaps. €454,216.53 in spending by 35 MPs had no declared donors. Some high-spending MPs, including Prime Minister Robert Abela and Opposition leader Alex Borg, declared no campaign expenditure at all. Minister Joe Etienne Abela, the highest individual spender, did not declare the source of his funds.
The public inspection period for candidates' campaign expenses is currently limited to two weeks after election results are published. The Electoral Commission has the power to extend this window, but critics argue it should be at least two months and published online.
Institutions without teeth
The European Commission's 2026 Rule of Law Report indicated that Malta has failed to establish a strong record of final judgments in corruption cases, despite an increase in investigations and resources for law enforcement. Malta scored 49 out of 100 points in the latest Corruption Perceptions Index.
Malta's Permanent Commission Against Corruption did not refer a single case for prosecution in 2026. The Commission operates with only three part-time members and strict secrecy provisions prevent it from sharing evidence with other authorities.
A November 2025 report from the Council of Europe's Group of States against Corruption concluded that Malta was not in sufficient compliance with recommendations aimed at preventing corruption and promoting integrity in central government and law enforcement agencies. GRECO requested a progress report by June 30, 2026.
Unimplemented reforms and new obstacles
Only two of the 26 recommendations from the public inquiry into Daphne Caruana Galizia's assassination have been fully implemented by May 2026. Key recommendations remain outstanding:
• Laws for Unexplained Wealth Orders to fight financial crime
• Specific offenses for hindering crime investigations
• A new crime of abuse of office
• Strengthening lobbying rules to ensure transparency
The European Commission's 2026 report flagged weak verification mechanisms for conflicts of interest in public administration.
A new law enacted in April 2025 restricts citizens' ability to directly request magisterial inquiries. Individuals must now first file a police report and provide court-admissible evidence, only petitioning a magistrate if the police fail to act within six months.
On the positive side, Malta became the first EU country to transpose the EU's anti-SLAPP directive into law in 2024, aimed at preventing abusive lawsuits designed to intimidate journalists.
What reformers are proposing
The Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation, in collaboration with Transparency International and Amphora Media, put forward concrete reforms in May 2026:
• Require all donations exceeding €100 from a single source to be recorded in a publicly accessible digital database
• Extend the public inspection period for campaign expenses to at least two months
• Empower the Electoral Commission to impose effective punitive fines
• Extend auditing obligations to companies owned by political parties
The third party, Momentum, proposed conditional state funding for political parties, mandatory full disclosure of all party donations with enforceable caps, and an automatic lifetime ban from public office for individuals convicted of corruption.
What other EU countries do differently
Estonia's Political Party Funding Surveillance Committee operates as an independent body with powers to request documents and impose sanctions. Estonian parties submit quarterly donation reports and all financial statements are publicly available online.
Germany provides public funding to political parties based on vote share, reducing dependence on large private donations. Donations exceeding €10,000 per year must be publicly disclosed, and contributions above €50,000 must be immediately reported and published.
Sweden recently approved a ban on political parties accepting anonymous or foreign contributions, regardless of amount.
What this means for Malta
The EU's new Regulation on Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising has been fully applied since October 2025, setting common standards for political ads across the bloc. Malta must also transpose the new EU Anti-Corruption Directive into national law by June 2028.
Until then, the system remains vulnerable. The MFSA Amendment Act, passed in a hurry just before the 2026 general election with limited public consultation, raised questions about who influenced its drafting. The lack of transparency in political donations means citizens cannot know whether wealthy donors in specific sectors influenced measures like the expanded MicroInvest schemes, investment tax credits, or the maintained 5% stamp-duty rate on family-business transfers in the 2026 Budget.
The Council of Europe's anti-corruption monitors have described Malta's disclosure regime as "incoherent" and its threshold "critically high." The institutional failures highlighted by the Daphne Caruana Galizia public inquiry — weak anti-corruption systems and unchecked political-business overlap — remain largely unaddressed.
