For years, the Labour machine went all in on the Electrogas money-laundering scandal whose symbol is 17 Black, the secret company owned by Yorgen Fenech and which is at the centre of a magisterial inquiry whose results are now (at the time of writing) being studied by the attorney general. But Robert Abela is indignant at any insinuation that anyone involved is a current member of the Labour Party.

No one cares if anyone who’s indicted is a Labour member today. Incidentally, if Konrad Mizzi is no longer a member, it would be interesting to know when his membership came to an end. In June 2020, he was expelled only from the parliamentary group.

The details matter. Mizzi is an icon of the fetid governance under Joseph Muscat. He has been fingered by the FIAU, the Caruana Galizia public inquiry, the court system and the auditor general. How long you hang on to him, without letting him go, says a lot about you.

Back to the bigger issue. What matters isn’t who is a party member today. It’s about how Labour behaved until now. In 2016, when Panamagate broke, Labour used the May Day celebrations to rally street support for the Panama gang.

In 2018, the ownership of 17 Black was publicly traced to Fenech. Yet, Edward Zammit Lewis and Rosianne Cutajar remained on regular texting terms with Fenech, right up till his arrest in 2019. They have never admitted they did wrong. Nor has Labour censured them. Is that still Labour’s position?

And, when some of the people likely to be indicted over the Electrogas scandal were brought before parliament’s public accounts committee, you’d have been forgiven for thinking that the Labour MPs on the PAC were part of the defence team, instead of asking probing questions on behalf of the public.

It’s a bit too late for Labour to say that the inquiry’s conclusions have nothing to do with it.

There’s more. The prime minister says the law concerning magisterial inquiries, and citizens’ right to request one, needs reform. He said it again when the story broke that the 17 Black inquiry had been wrapped up. The unstated implication: this inquiry is tainted by some of the defects and abuses he claims there are.

This argument by insinuation is a dangerous game. It throws suspicion on the process, while being able to say that no such thing was said.

Let’s have it out and demand some direct answers to clear the air.

First, Prime Minister, when you say the inquiries law needs reforming, do you think that the 17 Black inquiry is an example of why reforms are needed?

Was Simon Busuttil being abusive when he requested it? Was the court that granted the request complicit with abuse?

Your justice minister says the law needs to state that all available remedies must be exhausted first before requesting an inquiry. Did Busuttil exhaust his available remedies?

Initially, he waited for over a year, hoping the then police chief would act on an FIAU report recommending investigation. We now know he sat on it.

By the time Busuttil filed a second request for an inquiry, it was 2019. Fenech had been identified as the owner of a secret company implicated in a money-laundering scheme. Prime Minister, was Busuttil jumping the gun?

Let’s have it out and demand some direct answers to clear the air- Ranier Fsadni

Second, the justice minister has said people should rely on the police. In the case of 17 Black, of course, we have found out that the then police chief, his deputy and the chief of the financial crimes unit were all found to be untrustworthy.

Why should we be more reliant now? The police force has been awash with senior resignations. Should we not pay attention to that?

But let’s say we recover our full trust in police. How are we expected to decide that the police have done their job? The police (for good reasons) do not even reveal if they are investigating someone.

How can a citizen ever be in a position to decide that that path has been exhausted? By taking the police’s word for it? That’s not trust, Prime Minister. That’s unquestioning obedience. While we appreciate you’d like more obedience, our constitution is built on different principles: the state works for us.

Third, Abela has once more referred to inquiries becoming “inquisitions”. But he’s failed to give us an example. In the inquiries that have been concluded, who has been persecuted?

Please, don’t give us the canard about people who were indicted by mistake and where charges had to be withdrawn. That mistake is on the attorney general, who decides who to charge and whether more investigations are needed.

Prime Minister, if that bothers you, why are you still standing by the attorney general you appointed?

The justice minister tells us that inquiries should not become fishing expeditions. Again, he doesn’t identify which magisterial inquiries committed this sin. The Caruana Galizia public inquiry was accused, by Labour, of going on fishing expeditions. Then the report came out and Labour shut up.

In any case, a wide-ranging public inquiry cannot be confused with magisterial inquiries, which have the narrow scope of preserving evidence and recommending action, not of drawing conclusions and allocating blame.

These questions need to be asked. And evasions have to mean there’s no answer – and no justification for the reforms being proposed.