It is hard to know where to begin with the story about Jean Claude Micallef’s decision to hire a banned former footballer to provide audio-visual services for the sport ‘integrity’ authority.

While the contract with the former footballer was published by Times of Malta, Micallef failed to come up with any coherent explanation for his alleged signature on it, let alone explain his bizarre decision for engaging someone whose past crime should have completely eliminated him from any job with AIMS.

Instead, on a radio programme, Micallef decided to try to cover it up by turning the argument against the media for doing its job.

Perhaps it might be opportune to start with his accusations that it was a case of sour grapes from his “colleagues in the media”.

It was an interesting choice of phrase: it originated from one of Aesop’s fables. A fox who could not reach some grapes tried to alleviate his disappointment by claiming that they were sour in any case. It is hard to see how that could be applied to his so-called colleagues in the media who succeeded in uncovering his actions.

What it does involve is a clear case of childish self-defence by the former Labour MP, who lashed out wildly at those he felt had exposed his erroneous decision. His claims that he would “not be subjected to ridicule” and that “everyone will pay for what they tried to do” are hardly a veiled threat.

Micallef muttered during a radio interview that he knew who was behind the controversy, vowed payback, implied he was being framed, claimed there were inconsistencies in the contract and even that the former footballer had a clean criminal record – a nifty way of repackaging his lifetime ban.

People in positions of power are subjected to ridicule when they take actions which are misguided, naïve or absurd: how these actions come to light is hardly the issue.

Micallef seems to overlook the responsibility of the position he holds as chief executive officer of the regulatory body primarily tasked with combating sports’ match-fixing. It would have been poor judgement for anyone to hire the services of a former footballer previously convicted of attempting to bribe another footballer, whatever the legal grounds were on which to do so. For AIMS, of all entities, to engage his services is bizarre.

The leaked contract for the audiovisual services was a great embarrassment for the government. Sports Minister Clifton Grima immediately admitted that the “incident” did not put the sports regulatory body in a good light. He also said that the person in question “will not be working or providing a service to the authority”.

Regulatory bodies – no matter in which sector – have grave responsibilities; they need to lead by example and Micallef’s failure to understand the nuances of his actions are only slightly less worrying than his utter inability to accept responsibility for his actions but to, instead, lash out at those who exposed him.

The country is still reeling from changes to magisterial inquiries which have whittled away the very principles of democracy. These follow a string of scandals which have not led to any meaningful convictions or resignations, while even those who were forced to leave politics are turning up again in inappropriate positions. And when whistleblowers are blatantly threatened by a public official, you realise that legislation introduced in recent years has been anything but effective.

True leadership demands responsibility – even when mistakes are made – and a commitment to transparency and self-reflection. When public officials deflect blame and resort to bullying, they undermine the very institutions meant to protect society.