Witnesses in court swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It is, therefore, bewildering when, in the driving tests scandal court case, both Transport Malta officials and police officers testified about ministerial influence but the minister/s in question remained unnamed.

Perplexity gives rise to justified suspicion when one learns that the whistleblower who had triggered the investigation, leading to the arraignment of three Transport Malta officials, was forced to leave the island. The authorities say that happened because he failed to submit the necessary documents.

He had lived here for almost two decades, had a residence permit, was gainfully occupied and was even a ‘special delegate’ of the Labour Party. Since his departure, he made two very serious allegations.

One is about the driving tests scandal at Transport Malta.

More recently he claimed that ID cards of deceased foreign-born Maltese citizens were given to foreign residents to vote for the Labour Party. This has been forcefully denied even as the country faces more ‘vote-buying’ allegations, this time in the form of social benefits that recipients were not entitled to.

It does not take much to fear that what this man says he knows could be too inconvenient for some in very high places. Although, at this stage, his claims remain mere allegations, no stone should be left unturned to hear his version.

‘Aziz’, the fictitious name given to him, is willing to testify in court via video-conferencing and his request has now been accepted. He has also made a long and detailed declaration to the police financial crimes investigations department.

It is not clear whether he would have preferred testifying viva voce in court, which, of course, would be the best course to take. Still, it is commendable that both the court and the police made themselves available to ‘Aziz’. This is in the best interest of the rule of law and good governance.

Whistleblowers can be crucial to unearth corruption and wrongdoing. In addition, giving them weight and due protection is likely to serve as an effective deterrent.

Regrettably, there have been too many instances of whistleblowers being persecuted rather than the suspect culprits being duly investigated and, possibly, prosecuted.

Two of the more prominent cases were, of course, those involving former police officer and Financial Intelligence Analysis Unit official Jonathan Ferris and former Pilatus Bank employee Maria Efimova.

In another case, a Gozitan contractor was charged with defaming an aide to the then education minister after claiming the aide had demanded €30,000 to facilitate government payments the contractor was owed for works at the Victoria sixth form extension. Subsequently, the aide was not found guilty of bribery and corruption because he was not a public officer, as the charge sheet indicated.

The suspicion among so many remains that some institutions and State entities are still willing to coalesce to ward off the inconvenient truth. As a result, individuals willing to bravely stand up and blow the whistle remain, to this day, not adequately protected by the law.

Lack of protection for those exposing corruption is what mainly discourages the Maltese people from reporting cases of corruption, a recent study indicated. More than nine of every 10 citizens feel corruption is widespread and that they are personally affected.

An environment conducive to whistleblowers revealing the whole truth is in the public interest. The decision to listen to ‘Aziz’ might – just might, many are likely to add – pave the way for an effective Whistleblowers Act.