Author
Official data regarding the number of detained applicants throughout 2025 is elusive, due to the lack of available disaggregated data.
Detention of asylum applicants is regulated by national law, namely through the Reception Regulations.[1]
Throughout 2022 and 2023, all applicants arriving by sea were held for at least two weeks in the Ħal Far Initial Reception Centre (HIRC), the so-called ‘China House’, on the basis of the mentioned Prevention of Disease Ordinance for several weeks, pending a medical clearance by the Public Health authorities. Persons identified upon disembarkation by AWAS as being vulnerable were detained at the Marsa Initial Reception Centre.
This period was reduced throughout 2024 and 2025, as a consequence of the A.D. v. Malta ECtHR judgement where the Court confirmed the illegality of detaining any person on the basis of an order from the Superintendent for Public Health. At the end of 2025, persons rescued in December were initially kept at the Initial Reception Centre for some hours, during which time they were screened and registered by the PIO and AWAS. Detention Orders were issued at that stage and persons to be detained were taken to Safi Detention Centre.
In 2025 legislation was introduced amending the procedure that permits the Superintendent for Public Health to restrict the movement of persons suspected of having an infectious disease. Although not confirmed by the authorities, these amendments have been interpreted as paving the way for public health detention once the EU Pact is implemented in 2026.
Following the A.D. v. Malta judgement, the PIO introduced a new policy of mandatory detention for a minimum of around two months for all persons, exempting those flagged as vulnerable by AWAS at the point of disembarkation. This 2-month detention applies to all persons. At the end of the two-month period, the PIO undertakes an assessment to determine whether to release or continue detaining applicants. Generally, applicants having prima facie protection claims (e.g. Syrians and Sudanese during 2024 and 2025) would be released, whereas other applicants would be kept in detention on the basis of the same Detention Order.
The health service within Safi Barracks has seen considerable improvement with the installation of primary healthcare service providers offering general and specialised medical services. Whilst NGOs welcomed this significant improvement, they nonetheless lamented the fact of their inability to provide independent services to detained clients. They underlined that, in view of the fact that detention-related decisions were often being made on the basis of reports and assessments compiled by State entities, the need for independent reports was key to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to liberty. Furthermore, they also expressed disagreement with the State’s approach that, if a service is being provided by a State entity, NGO services would not be permitted.
Despite some efforts to refurbish some blocks of Safi Detention Centre, detention conditions still have a carceral setting offering substandard living arrangements. Access to legal assistance remains a long-standing issue, with no proper means of communication and restricted access to lawyers, NGOs and UNHCR. Interferences from the Ministry or the PIO are reported to be frequent and private and privileged information is reported to be freely shared between governmental entities.
Since 2023, access to the centres and to detained applicants remained the most pressing concern for NGO, together with living conditions and treatment of vulnerable persons.
Access to effective remedies to challenge detention is reported to be limited and, at times, inexistent due serious concerns by legal practitioners and NGOs over independence and impartiality of the Immigration Appeals Board (IAB). In J.B. and Others v. Malta, the ECtHR issued interim measures to Malta regarding the IAB’s operations, underlining that it does not fulfil Convention criteria to review detention legality:
The Court notes that it has found that the applicants did not have an effective remedy for the purposes of Article 5 § 4, considering, inter alia, that in the absence of any safeguards the applicants had legitimate doubts as to the independence of the IAB. Bearing in mind that both independence and impartiality are important constituent elements of the notion of a “court” within the meaning of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and that the general principles concerning the independence and impartiality of a tribunal, for the purposes of Article 6 of the Convention apply equally to Article 5 § 4 (see 143 above) the Court calls on the Government to ensure that legislation is put in place in order for the IAB to conform with those requirements, having regard to the manner of appointment of its members and their term of office, the existence of guarantees against outside pressure and the necessity for the body to present an appearance of independence.[2]
State sponsored legal assistance is provided for the initial review of detention under the Reception Regulations before the IAB. For the second review, legal practitioners noted that these are not regularly held but, if and when held, legal aid is provided. Legal practitioners noted that throughout 2024 unaccompanied children in the age assessment procedure did not have their detention reviewed by the IAB, but it is not clear why.
In April 2023, the Detention Services Agency (DSA) was established by law,[3] giving it a distinct legal personality. The DSA is a body corporate with the capacity to execute contracts, engage personnel, manage property, and litigate. In terms of formal structure, the DSA is established under the authority of the Home Affairs Ministry and, although it operates autonomously, it remains subject to directives issued by the Ministry. The Order states that the Agency has the obligation to submit an annual report to the Minister within six weeks following the conclusion of each financial year. This report is expected to encompass a comprehensive overview of the Agency’s activities throughout the year, accompanied by an audited statement of accounts. Additionally, the report should include pertinent information regarding the Agency’s proceedings, operations, and future plans aimed at fulfilling its functions. Furthermore, it stipulates that the Minister is responsible for presenting this report to Parliament, within six weeks of receiving it. At the time of writing of this update (January 2026), no DSA report had been submitted to Parliament.
The possibility to detain vulnerable persons, including children, was strengthened in 2024 with the adoption of Legal Notice 87, whereby specific provisions on their detention were incorporated in the Reception Regulations, summarised below.[4]
Throughout 2024, UNHCR held three training sessions covering 44 DSA staff on the UNHCR mandate, refugee law and human rights standards in administrative detention, identification of persons with specific needs, and cultural sensitivities including trauma and conflict resolution.[5]
[1] Reception Regulations.
[2] ECtHR, Case of J.B. and Others v. Malta, Application 1766/23, 22 October 2024, available here, para. 167.
[3] Detention Services Agency (Establishment) Order, S.L. 594.45, 8 April 2023, available at: https://tinyurl.com/3t4txnu7.
[4] Reception of Asylum-Seekers (Amendment) Regulations, L.N. 87 of 2024, available at: https://tinyurl.com/ywd7rxkd.
[5] Information provided by UNHCR in February 2025.