In politics, defiance can be a virtue but also a sin. It is honourable when resisting an unfair system, injustice, adverse policies. But it becomes reprehensible when the motivation is personal ambition, hunger for power and greed.

Politicians falling in the first category are a credit not only to themselves but also the party they represent and to their constituents – not the blinkered, of course – proud.

The ones putting their own interests before anything else will only be digging a deeper hole and when truth prevails – as it unmistakeably does – the damage goes well beyond them.

This is precisely the situation Clint Camilleri has brought himself to. When a third request was made for a magisterial inquiry into alleged wrongdoing on his part, the Gozo minister brazenly labelled it an attempt to tarnish his reputation.

His reputation was certainly tarnished considerably when the commissioner for standards in public life found he and a former cabinet colleague breached ethics and abused their power by giving the colleague’s wife a consultancy job she was not qualified for and did not do.

His colleague, Clayton Bartolo resigned; true, only after another allegation involving his wife emerged, but Camilleri held on in defiance.

“This is a political persecution, and everyone will eventually have to answer for their actions,” he declared.

Defending oneself is not only natural but also a legal right. However, taking advantage of one’s position, as a legislator, is unethical at best and undemocratic at worst.

Yet, that is what Camilleri’s defiance and the sort of support he is receiving from his political master, Robert Abela, mean.

They keep forgetting that, being politicians, when fingers are pointed at them, they cannot just respond as if they are in a court of law. In terms of any criminal liability, they will be presumed innocent until there is a conviction. It would also be up to the accusing prosecution to prove its case.

Not so in the ‘electorate’s court’. There, as history shows, perception is what matters and it is up to the accused to prove their innocence... and until they do that, they usually suspend their role in public life.

Instead, what the prime minister prefers to do to ‘defend’ his erring colleagues is make it more difficult for citizens, NGOs and the independent media to seek the truth via official channels.

It is already a gargantuan task exercising the right to seek information in terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

The next step may be invoking the legal tool that allows a magistrate to investigate potential wrongdoing.

While it’s important to use this mechanism judiciously, in a climate of impunity and repeated inaction by the police and attorney general, there are few avenues left for seeking justice.

The prime minister now also wants to remove personal liability of civil servants deemed to have failed in their duties.

Whether Abela is going to such extremes – because extremes they are – to defend his colleagues or to ensure the party he leads can attract enough votes to win the next election, may be a moot point.

In the process, however, he is doing untold harm to the Labour Party and damaging the country’s reputation.

Transparency, openness and empowering the public can prevent corruption, wrongdoing and abuse of power.

Regrettably, unlike judge Louis Brandeis, Abela does not seem to agree that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”.