Across various legislatures, cabinet members have privately confided to journalists that they often feel compelled to support projects, initiatives, or decisions they personally disagree with.

They remain silent during policy discussions or even offer their approval, driven by pressure or fear of ostracism from their colleagues. This compliance persists even when they believe the cabinet’s decision is unjustified, suspicious, riddled with nepotism, and not in the public interest.

Failure to say enough is enough – our words not the court’s – was one of the main reasons why a magistrate ruled there were enough reasons to indict Chris Fearne and Edward Scicluna.

The decree should not only serve as an eye-opener to all those wielding power, but also serve as a game-changer to ensure the system of checks and balances works effectively. Cabinet ministers, top public officers and those in position of power enjoy legal protection precisely because they are often called upon to make tough decisions for the common good. Magistrate Leonard Caruana raised two points in the decree he delivered on Wednesday. He noted that, notwithstanding their ability to do so, had they wanted, Fearne and Scicluna did not object to cabinet decisions perpetuating the hospitals’ concession deal.

Those who only voice their objections to contentious decisions in private need to find the courage to speak up where it matters most – around the Cabinet table

The magistrate noted that the two ministers did not choose to step down and that, although they were informed about alleged shortcomings, they still voted for several memoranda submitted to cabinet. Together with their permanent secretaries, they authorised payments to the concessionaires despite difficulties they appear to have known about.

The other observation made in the decree was that, for the plan put in action by the investors and ultimate beneficiaries to succeed, there had to be a “web of support” for corruption.

Even if the case against Fearne and Scicluna, and 12 others, has now moved a step beyond arraignment, they must continue to be presumed innocent. Both former ministers have put up a strong line of defence. There is also evidence that Fearne repeatedly stood in the way of Steward Health Care when he felt the requests went too far. 

Still, the court is insisting that was not enough. Good governance, public trust and institutional integrity are likely to be adversely affected when those in decision-making positions fail to do what is expected of them – whether it is because of dereliction of duty, incompetence, inertia, complicity or whatever.

Rather than get lost in empty political rhetoric, this country – and, especially, the two main political parties who both have their massima mea culpa to proclaim – must learn from past mistakes and resolve on a way forward.

Such approach must be based on accountability, transparency and improved decision-making frameworks.

That could mean independent watchdog agencies and strengthening parliamentary oversight, a law that truly protects whistleblowers rather than expose them to dangers, legislation that clearly defines the duties and responsibilities of public officials, with explicit penalties for dereliction of duty and improving transparency by making government decisions and the rationale behind them publicly available.

Ultimately, Cabinet ministers must constantly remind themselves that they are there not just to serve their constituents and to seek re-election. But they have a duty to serve their country – and more importantly to show their disapproval and vote down any unacceptable proposals at Cabinet.

From now on, they need to make sure that their objection is minuted and registered. Many of those who only voice their objections to contentious decisions in private need to find the courage to speak up where it matters most – around the Cabinet table.

Because Wednesday’s decision – whether they like it or not – could well be a turning point in the way a crucial part of the government operates.