The government displays crass insensitivity every time it removes candles and flowers placed at a Valletta memorial after the monthly vigil held in memory of Daphne Caruana Galizia. Now, begrudgingly, and the manner of its announcement seemingly unplanned, it appears to have agreed to open a public inquiry into the journalist’s killing within a three-month limit laid down by the Council of Europe.

The move, awkwardly made public not by the Prime Minister but by the Foreign Affairs Minister during a media freedom event in London, is intended to investigate whether the murder could have been avoided, among others.

The Office of the Prime Minister has come out saying that the comments made by Carmelo Abela and those made earlier by Joseph Muscat were “the same thing”.

But, in fact, they are not, for Muscat had not, up to this stage, committed himself to opening the inquiry within the Council of Europe’s deadline.

Muscat insisted the advice he had was that an inquiry could prejudice ongoing criminal procedures.

The dragging of feet in responding to calls for the opening of a public inquiry had set alarm bells ringing in places where the country’s rule of law is being minutely monitored in the wake of a series of scandals and serious institutional weaknesses that have greatly tarnished the country’s reputation.

After playing for time on the pretext of advice given by the Attorney General, Muscat has now given the green light for the opening of the inquiry.

Beyond the advice given to the government by the Attorney General against the holding of a public inquiry – a reason not considered strong enough by other lawyers – what counts is how the government plans to proceed from now on. Following the raft of damaging reports on Malta, the government has an opportunity to prove it can  do a professional job. If it falters in this, it will confirm widespread fears that it may have ulterior motives.

A number of key issues come into play, the first of which are the terms of reference to be given to the inquiry board.

The second, equally important in the context of what the Council of Europe described as the country’s dysfunctional system, is the composition of the board. In a country where practically everyone is politically tagged, this is a hard nut to crack. But, in this case, cracked it must be, for it will be completely useless to have an inquiry board if the members do not enjoy the people’s confidence.

It is critically important that the board is therefore truly independent and impartial, free of any direct or indirect ties with the government.

A way out would be to find two or three outsiders with vast experience in this work to complement any Maltese members found widely acceptable to sit on the board. Any government attempt to appoint any past party member, irrespective of how high his position in the country might have been at any time in his career, is likely to fall flat.

The Nationalist Party has made a very important point in this regard, more so in light of the strong remarks in the Council of Europe resolution over the excessive powers of the Prime Minister.

The party is suggesting that in order to ensure the independence and impartiality of the board members, they should be appointed by Parliament, not by the Prime Minister who, it well remarked, had to agree to set up the inquiry following pressure by the Council of Europe.

The issue over the board’s terms of reference may present some difficulty, too, as, whatever form the terms finally agreed upon will take, they are likely to create controversy. What is important however is that, as suggested by the Nationalist Party, the Democratic Party and by civil society group Repubblika, they are not restricted to finding if the journalist’s killing could have been prevented. That is important, but the terms ought to include such matters as, for instance, whether there had been any intelligence of any possibility that Caruana Galizia was at any point facing a risk to her life greater than normal in the circumstances.

Of high importance in the upholding of investigative journalism is also the suggestion made by Dutch MP Peter Omtzigt, author of the Council of Europe report on Malta, for the inquiry to determine what needs to be done to ensure journalists do not risk their lives when investigating cases of high-level corruption.

With the two men suspected of planting the bomb that killed Caruana Galizia now claiming that the report has breached their right to a fair trial, the legal complications are unlikely to get sorted out any time soon.

This makes it all the more important now for the country to go ahead with the opening of a public inquiry. The sooner, the better.