University licence issued after initial refusal, raising questions about regulatory process

Malta’s higher education regulator is again being criticised for granting university status to an Italian-linked online institution, despite an earlier evaluation panel finding serious shortcomings and recommending refusal.

The Malta Further and Higher Education Authority (MFHEA) confirmed earlier this month that MED.E.A, which describes itself as the digital institution for the Mediterranean, Europe and Africa, was granted a licence to operate as a university.

The decision, announced on 7 January, came more than four years after the institution’s parent company, Pegaso International Ltd, first applied for full university recognition for its Malta-based operation.

MED.E.A now joins the University of Malta, Barts Medical School and the American University of Malta as one of the few institutions licensed to operate at a full university level in the country.

The announcement was accompanied by the publication of selected evaluation documents, which were released a day after The Shift submitted questions to the MFHEA about the licensing process.

Sources insisted that the timing and substance of the disclosures have intensified concerns about transparency, governance and political influence at MFHEA.

According to documentation seen by The Shift, MED.E.A’s original application, assessed in 2023, was rejected after an evaluation panel concluded that the institution failed to meet required standards in seven of 11 core areas.

The panel included Janet Harvey, Doreen Said Pace and Pat Sikes, and highlighted deficiencies in academic governance, staffing, quality assurance and institutional capacity.

Under existing regulations, a negative evaluation would usually require an applicant to submit a fresh application. Instead, MFHEA allowed what it described as a “re-validation” process – a procedure not explicitly provided for in legislation – following an appeal by the institution.

A second evaluation panel was subsequently appointed, comprising Hendrik Martijnse, Shkelzen Gerxhaliu and Bernard Micallef of the University of Malta. This panel reached a different conclusion, issuing a positive recommendation that ultimately led to the licence being granted.

As part of the re-validation process, evaluators travelled to Naples, where Pegaso operates another campus, and assessed facilities outside Malta as part of the institution’s overall capacity. The application included facilities available in Naples, not in Malta, which raised further questions about the national accreditation.

The process was concluded under the leadership of Rose Anne Cuschieri, the former chief executive of MFHEA, who announced her resignation last summer, saying she was retiring.

Her successor, James Perry Maia, told The Shift that the decision “did not happen on his watch” and distanced himself from the re-validation procedure.

However, he defended the outcome, acknowledging that the original application had failed but stating that the appeal process had resulted in a different assessment.

Industry stakeholders and academics have been critical. Several described the process as “a sham” and alleged political pressure on the regulator.

One senior University of Malta academic insisted with The Shift that the approach was “against the law and damaging to Malta’s reputation, arguing that once an application is refused, it cannot legally be revived without starting anew.

The controversy comes at a sensitive time for Malta’s education regulator.

In 2023, MFHEA failed to secure full membership of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) and was not registered with the European Quality Assurance Register (EQAR), after assessors found it was not fully compliant with European Standards and Guidelines. The decision weakened international confidence in Maltese-accredited qualifications and placed the regulator under increased scrutiny.

Education Minister Clifton Grima has sought to play down the ENQA and EQAR setback, while Cuschieri described the failure as “worth trying”.

Sources, however, argue that the MED.E.A case exemplifies the very governance weaknesses highlighted by European reviewers – namely, insufficient independence, inconsistent application of standards and a perceived prioritisation of growth over quality.