It’s being said that Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale, in his damning judgment of the government’s hospital deal, never breathed the word ‘corruption’.

True enough. He said other things.

And it’s being said that the money paid out to Vitals and Steward is being exaggerated because much of it actually went on salaries, operating costs and rehabilitation. True enough. So let’s begin there.

In his court testimony, Joseph Muscat indignantly said Vitals was getting only €64,000 per day, not €250,000. By the government’s own budgetary estimates, that means that, up till 2020, the consortium was paid some €150 million (apart from the salaries, etc.). So that’s all right, then?

Besides, the salaries were not necessarily well spent. The late cardiologist, Albert Fenech, spoke of how Steward dumped all the extensive work he did for Vitals, for which he and others were paid and supplies were bought.

The auditor general spoke of “mismanagement of state resources and, ultimately, an unnecessary additional financial burden imposed on the government – albeit by itself…”

Maybe the auditor general is miscalculating. Testifying at the beginning of 2021, Muscat said the deal was a success because you had to factor in vision and leadership.

However, Fenech, a specialist with international experience, saw no leadership or vision. At the end of 2021, Fenech, disillusioned by a project he initially believed in, spoke of being “bamboozled” and that “whenever the name Konrad Mizzi comes up, you smell a rat”.

But smelling a rat is not the same as smelling corruption. You may talk of a difference of opinion, and inequity towards rodents, but you may not suggest kleptocracy.

Let us be clear, the judge never mentions corruption. He does say that Vitals and Steward engaged in fraud and possibly criminal action. He does say that the government representatives were inept, amateurish, just possibly ingenuous and completely irresponsible when it came to safeguarding the national interest. But he never speaks of corruption.

On the basis of the evidence before him, the judge endorses everything the auditor general said. This includes his conviction of “definite evidence” of VGH’s “collusion with government, or its representatives” in securing the deal.

Muscat insists that the secret memorandum of understanding, reached with the investors behind Vitals before the request for proposals was published, had nothing to do with the latter. The auditor general says it plainly did and this means the investors had inside information helping them with their bid.

Muscat says that Vitals didn’t have to get the contract. The judge endorses the auditor general’s view that the process “was fraudulently contrived” and that “the public procurement process was undertaken to lend the award of the concession a semblance of regularity and propriety when, in fact, the outcome of the process was a given”.

But the judge doesn’t speak of corruption. So you may call the process foul, feculent, crapulous and turbid. You may listen to the protestations of Muscat, Mizzi, the evaluation committee (which did little evaluating) and the steering committee (which did no steering) and shake your head, sadly, in the face of such ordure and bull dust. But it’s unwarranted to insinuate corruption.

You see, there is no evidence of corruption. How could there be? A key role was played in the negotiations by Mizzi and, through Keith Schembri, the office of the prime minister. But both Mizzi and Schembri refused to speak to the auditor general.

The judge said nothing that denies the Vitals deal was a virgin birth. Our Joseph, like the other one, had nothing to do with it- Ranier Fsadni

At one point, Mizzi even chose not to testify in court. He couldn’t be cross-examined on arrangements that made no sense for the public interest.

How can there be proof of corruption when the MoU was “lost” for a long time? When Malta Enterprise refused to give the auditor general a negative due diligence report on Vitals? When Schembri wouldn’t clear up who first got to know of the investors? When the negotiation committee kept no written record of its work?

So you may talk of mystery and puzzlement and, as the judge does, of surprise. But you may not speak of corruption.

Admittedly, in all this there’s a niggle. It was only in March 2016 that Edward Scicluna, then finance minister, was first told of the financial implications of the agreement.

In other words, Scicluna learned of an onerous, secret agreement at the same time that Mizzi’s secret Panama company had been revealed. It was at the same time that Muscat was telling all ministers that he needed Mizzi because he was a doer.

At that same time, Scicluna was chasing Mizzi to see the VGH contract. But Mizzi resisted until mid-July and only after Muscat was informed. But, apparently, no one asked questions – not Muscat, who continued to insist on Mizzi’s indispensability, not Scicluna or anyone else.

Nor does the judge draw any conclusions in his judgment. So you may call it boobocracy or idiocracy, government by Baldricks or narcoleptics but you have no warrant to suggest corruption.

To sum up, the judge said nothing that denies the Vitals deal was a virgin birth. Our Joseph, like the other one, had nothing to do with it.

There is, admittedly, the ghostly role played by his right-hand man, Schembri, although whether he was a holy or unholy ghost has yet to be determined.

And Konrad the doer was poor Joseph’s undoing.

All Joseph did was enable that, through Mizzi, gold, frankincense and myrrh continued to be supplied in industrial amounts, mindful that a child is not just for Christmas and that, in any case, it was taxpayers who were left holding the baby.

So, there is absolutely no reason to make a political football out of this scandal. Football should be left to Muscat and Joseph Portelli. Mizzi’s name should never be mentioned but only alluded to. And Schembri should continue to benefit from the government’s direct orders.