The judgment handed down by Mr Justice Wenzu Mintoff ordering Projects Malta to name the members of the evaluation committee in the hospitals concession tender is not only a landmark decision but also an eye-opener and, more importantly, a game changer.

It took a two-year-long legal battle, initiated by Times of Malta, for logic to finally prevail. The superior court judge reached the conclusions that Projects Malta, the Data Protection Commissioner and the Data Protection Appeals Tribunal failed to reach or, rather, would not even consider.

To be fair, their determination not to allow accountability and transparency to prevail – in this case under the lame pretext of protecting privacy – is widespread among government officials and functionaries. Governments everywhere have a tendency to be as economical as possible with information and Malta is no exception. Most of the time, this approach is used to cover up venial sins. But Malta’s veil of secrecy has become a diabolical tool, used frequently and widely, to conceal a web of corruption and worse; to bury the mortal sins committed by Joseph Muscat’s administration.

Now that the court has reached this decision, there should be no two ways about it. Forthwith, when public projects are being processed, confidentiality should be the exception not the rule, as has been the case over the past few years.

Those willing to serve on evaluation committees, or similar bodies, must accept that, given the intrinsic public responsibilities they shoulder, as Mr Justice Mintoff pointed out, their right to privacy cannot feature in their public function.

The argument that publishing names could result in an obstacle to finding people to sit on such committees holds no water. Indeed, the court deemed such a state of affairs remote, hypothetical also, considering the many qualified people available on the island. When a public entity makes such an argument it probably means that it is having problems finding yes-men.

The public interest prevails over such members’ desire, for whatever reason, to remain unknown. Seeking their identity is not part of some witch hunt or fishing expedition. It is to ensure the existence of a level playing field and that they have fulfilled their public role in the most transparent and accountable manner.

It now ought to become compulsory by law for the names of those sitting on evaluation committees in public projects to be published immediately the final decision is made. Any exception should need a court’s blessing.

Not only that, but there should also be full disclosure of all members’ other engagements to scrutinise for potential conflicts of interest. This would avoid scandalous situations such as the case of the Planning Authority employee whom Muscat had appointed chairman of the Environment and Planning Review Tribunal.

As recent experience has sadly demonstrated, the absence of transparency and lack of accountability are breeding grounds for corruption and abuse of power.

In a decision against Hungary, the European Court of Human Rights had spoken of “the ‘censorial power of an information monopoly’ when public bodies refuse to release information needed by the media or civil society organisations to perform their ‘watchdog’ function”.

Mr Justice Mintoff rightly argued that the first prerequisite must be that of upholding the substantial public interest that lies in protecting the right to information and freedom of expression.

The prime minister should waste no more time to publicly declare he has issued instructions to ensure this judgment is scrupulously observed in both spirit and letter.