A series of legal questions arise from the administrative circular issued by the Ministry of Justice concerning the prohibition of issuing debt declarations, guarantees, or sureties from Kuwaiti citizens in favor of non-Kuwaitis. These questions focus on the compatibility of the circular with constitutional principles, its compliance with existing laws, and its validity as a regulatory measure. There are fundamental principles enshrined in the Kuwaiti Constitution, including equality before the law and the protection of individual rights, whether for citizens or residents. Article 29 of the Constitution states that , all people are equal in human dignity, and they are equal before the law in their public rights and duties; there shall be no discrimination between them based on gender, origin, language, or religion. Considering this constitutional provision, the circular issued by the Assistant Undersecretary for Real Estate Registration and Notarization could be interpreted as a form of governmental discrimination between citizens and residents, raising constitutional debate regarding its compatibility with principles of justice and equality. In the context of constitutional principles, Law No. 5 of 1959 on Real Estate Registration stipulates that legal transactions relating to financial declarations should be regulated in a manner that preserves the rights of all parties. This raises the question of whether the circular conflicts with the freedom of contract guaranteed by law. The prohibition on issuing debt declarations or guarantees restricts the rights of non-Kuwaitis to secure their interests through binding contracts. Moreover, the rationale presented by some for this decision, namely the protection of national interest, must also be balanced against the principle of the rule of law and equal opportunities. The circular, however, fails to provide alternative mechanisms to safeguard the rights of the non-Kuwaiti party, such as bank guarantees, approval of their contracts by other official entities, or other means that do not violate the principle of equality. This decision may also have negative repercussions on the overall investment climate within the country, raising concerns among foreign investors regarding the protection of their investments or the ability to enforce debts against local partners. Such concerns conflict with the government’s strategic direction of restructuring the state’s investment philosophy to enhance openness and attract foreign investment to Kuwait. Accordingly, there is a legal need to correct this administrative circular. Its continuation, as currently formulated, weakens contractual freedom and restricts the legal options available to a recognized party in legal contracts. Therefore, if the circular cannot be repealed—which would be the preferred option—it should at least be amended to provide a more balanced approach, including specific conditions rather than a complete prohibition, in compliance with the Constitution and relevant laws. Until a proper solution is found to the problem created by this poorly considered circular, legal alternatives available to non-Kuwaitis include using bank guarantees, whereby banks can issue financial guarantees in lieu of declarations, contracting through accredited intermediaries to protect their rights, and ultimately resorting to litigation as a legal mechanism to safeguard rights through the registration of contracts as enforceable official documents in the event of a dispute. Finally, it must be emphasized that when government decisions, circulars, or legal amendments are issued concerning contractual or commercial matters to serve the public interest, it is essential to balance interests by ensuring the rights of all parties, while strengthening legal and financial protective mechanisms for both parties to a contract.