Can São Tomé and Príncipe Cut the Portuguese Citizenship Timeline to Seven Years?

The short answer is that the strategy may work under the wording of Portuguese nationality law as it stands today, but that does not make it a decision investors should rush into. The practical question is not whether a São Tomé and Príncipe passport could help on paper; it is whether spending roughly $100,000 now, for a benefit that may only matter years later, is a sensible use of capital and optionality.

That is the central point behind the video. Portugal’s revised nationality framework distinguishes between applicants from Portuguese-speaking countries and other nationals, and the current political direction in Lisbon has been to make nationality more demanding rather than less. In parliamentary debate on the 2026 reform, the Government set out a seven-year route for nationals of CPLP countries and EU citizens, versus ten years for others. (Source: Assembleia da República)

On that reading, a person who first acquires São Tomé and Príncipe nationality and later applies for Portuguese naturalisation as a Portuguese resident could, in theory, fall within the shorter route. The attraction is obvious: if the three-year difference survives until the point of application, the passport economics may be compelling for the right family. But the word “may” matters. The entire argument depends on a legal interpretation that could be narrowed, clarified or closed before an applicant ever reaches the citizenship stage.

What the strategy is trying to achieve

The logic is straightforward. A Portugal Golden Visa investor begins building legal residence in Portugal. Separately, the investor acquires São Tomé and Príncipe citizenship through a citizenship-by-investment route that is described as fast, relatively light-touch and not dependent on relocation. The end goal is not the São Tomé passport in itself, but the possibility that this nationality will later place the applicant in the seven-year rather than the ten-year Portuguese category.

That makes São Tomé and Príncipe a potential accelerant, not a destination. It is a second-passport decision made for the sake of a future Portuguese naturalisation application. In the video, Jonathan’s core argument is that this is a much more interesting question of timing than it is a headline-grabbing loophole.

His practical warning is simple: if the benefit only becomes relevant many years from now, there is often little reason to commit irreversible capital today. Because the São Tomé route, as described in the video, is fast, an investor can wait, observe how the Portuguese reform is applied in practice, and then decide later whether the second passport is still worth pursuing.

Why the current Portuguese position matters

The reason this idea has attracted attention is that Portuguese-speaking nationality can matter in the naturalisation timeline. Portuguese law has long recognised a distinction between applicants from CPLP countries and applicants from other states, and the 2026 reform preserved that basic logic while changing the overall nationality landscape. The Government presented the reform as a tightening of nationality policy, not a relaxation of it. (Source: Assembleia da República)

That means the present opportunity, if it exists, is not about a guaranteed entitlement to citizenship. It is about whether the applicant’s nationality at the time of application is enough to place them in the preferential category. Jonathan’s reading is that the law appears to focus on current nationality, rather than on whether that nationality was held from birth or for a minimum period. That is the legal opening the strategy depends on.

But this is precisely where caution is needed. A legal interpretation that is useful today is not the same thing as a secure outcome seven years from now. Parliament could amend the law, the administration could impose clarifying evidential requirements, or the rules could be reframed so that citizenship acquired through investment no longer receives the same treatment. None of that is certain, but all of it is plausible enough that investors should treat the idea as conditional rather than settled.

The economics of waiting

Jonathan’s preferred position is to separate the two decisions. If Portugal alone makes sense, start Portugal first. Do not make a São Tomé passport a condition of entering the Golden Visa programme. The residence clock can begin now, and the investor can preserve flexibility while the legal picture matures.

That matters because the São Tomé route is, in economic terms, a sunk cost. Once the contribution has been made, the capital is not coming back. The investor is paying for optionality, not for a recoverable asset. For some people, especially those who place a real value on an additional passport for family resilience, that may be entirely rational. For others, the marginal value of saving three years in the distant future will not justify the immediate outlay.

The transcript makes a useful distinction here. Portuguese permanent residence, or the ability to move away from the Golden Visa structure at an earlier stage, is not dependent on the second passport in the same way that naturalisation may be. In other words, the strategic benefit of São Tomé and Príncipe is concentrated at the later citizenship stage, not at the point of establishing residence or securing long-term settlement.

That is why waiting often looks better than rushing. If the São Tomé passport can still be obtained quickly in four or five years’ time, the investor loses very little by deferring the decision. If, by contrast, the political and legal position in Portugal remains favourable and the strategy is still available, the investor can act with more confidence. If the rules change, the investor will have avoided an unnecessary sunk cost.

When the strategy may make sense

Jonathan is not dismissing the idea altogether. He acknowledges that there are circumstances in which the strategy could be sensible. A family in which the timing difference is genuinely meaningful may place a high value on shaving three years off the road to an EU passport. An older investor may care more about receiving citizenship at 70 rather than 73. Someone who independently wants São Tomé and Príncipe nationality as part of a broader mobility plan may also find the cost easier to justify.

There is also a commercial reality: new citizenship-by-investment programmes can become more expensive, slower or harder to access once they attract wider attention. That is one reason some investors prefer to secure an option early. But the fact that a programme might change is not, by itself, a reason to buy it. The real issue is whether the investor actually needs it now.

For a typical new Portugal Golden Visa investor, Jonathan’s conclusion is that the answer is usually no. Begin Portugal if Portugal works. Keep watching the legal environment. Revisit the São Tomé question later, when the law is clearer and the decision is closer to the point of need.

Practical conclusion

The video’s conclusion is measured rather than dramatic. On the current wording of Portuguese law, São Tomé and Príncipe nationality appears capable of moving an applicant from the ten-year category into the seven-year category. That creates a potentially valuable three-year saving. But the fact that a strategy appears workable today does not make it prudent to spend immediately, especially where the relevant benefit lies years in the future and the law may still evolve.

The more disciplined approach is to treat São Tomé and Príncipe as an option, not a prerequisite. If the Portugal Golden Visa is right for you, start there. Preserve capital. Watch how the 2026 nationality reform is applied in practice. Then, when the timing is real rather than hypothetical, decide whether the additional passport is still worth the cost.

That is the article’s underlying message: the question is not whether a São Tomé passport could help. It is whether you should pay for the possibility before you know whether you will need it.

Important information: This article is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal, tax or investment advice. Programme rules, legislation and investment conditions may change, and readers should obtain appropriate professional advice before making any decision.