It says a lot that list of applicants in the recent judgment of the Civil Court (in its constitutional jurisdiction) covers almost five pages. Each of those names listed represents a grave miscarriage of justice, and one that successive governments have preferred to allow to languish with other skeletons in their closets.

It has been 50 years since the shameful take-over of the National Bank of Malta by the government of the day, half a century which has failed to resolve this sad episode in the country’s history and the profound disbelief resulting from the abrupt take-over.

Let us recall those surreal days: then prime minister Dom Mintoff went to parliament in December 1973, announcing plans to take over the NBM because of a run on the bank which saw over Lm1 million (€2.3m) a day being withdrawn by panicked depositors. In just one week, the National Bank and the Tagliaferro Bank were “temporarily” taken over by an administrative council. Just a few months later, all the assets and debts of the NBM were transferred to Bank of Valletta by public deed.

The decision was based on whether the bank was viable, which depended on whether some of its loans had any hope of being repaid. Fast forward to 2019, when one of those borrowers, the Corinthia Group, claimed to have repaid debts – which would include the Lm1.6 million (€3.6m) it borrowed from NBM. So much for that.

Some of the NBM shareholders refused to sign away their assets without compensation and went to court in 1977, and two more cases were filed in court in 1992.

Their attempt to overturn the Act which had set up Bank of Valletta was eventually turned down by Mr Justice Joseph R. Micallef, but they wanted compensation for their assets. And that was the nub of the issue: were those assets worth anything, and if so, how much?

Over those decades, the issue reared its head many times. There were even attempts by the Nationalist government to close the chapter by offering an amount to the shareholders, which was rejected with barely a sniff.

The court concluded its hearings in 2010 – but sentencing was put off repeatedly, although hope seemed to have triumphed in 2014, when the Constitutional Court of Appeal confirmed the judgments handed down earlier that year that the shareholders’ rights had been breached. But even that was also short-lived. The judgments merely led to yet more bickering over just how much compensation should be, with one side claiming hundreds of millions and the government claiming it effectively owed zero.

And even now, this is by no means the end of the saga as both the 82 shareholders – who were eventually awarded €111 million – and the government has stated its intention to appeal.

Let us make it clear: no one questions that Bank of Valletta was set up without the loss of one penny by depositors and without one job being sacrificed. But there are questions aplenty about the role of the Central Bank of Malta as the lender of last resort and why it did not step in – or allow other banks to do so. Was it prompted by jealousy or fear? Was it all part of a nationalisation plan, taking place just years after the take-over of the petroleum companies?

This was a post-colonial government that needed to build up an economy based on trust. Having an unresolved case that dates back 50 years casts a dark shadow across the courts and on those successive governments who found this too hot a potato to handle. How much better to play for time and hope that everyone involved would die, taking with them any evidence they had.