Accused of corruption in the Vitals/Steward hospitals deal, Joseph Muscat protests his innocence. All the inquiry came up with, he says, is hearsay and bank payments that can easily be explained. He insists that he did nothing wrong.

The Vitals inquiry report concedes that, in comparison with Konrad Mizzi and Keith Schembri, there are ‘far fewer documents which directly evidence the level of Muscat’s knowledge and endorsement of what was happening’, that is, the ‘nefarious way in which the concession was awarded and operated’.

Muscat refuses to comment further on the case. We will have to wait for it to unfold to see just how many key meetings he attended and what actual work he did for Accutor, a company that received money from Steward Health Care.

But there’s another set of questions to ask Muscat. They’re about a case that was decided last year – the one brought by Adrian Delia against Muscat and others. He needn’t worry about ‘gag orders’; there are none.

And the questions are not accusatory. They don’t charge him with doing anything wrong. They invite him to boast about what he did right.

Testifying before Mr Justice Francesco Depasquale, on January 18, 2021, Muscat declared the Vitals deal a success. It displayed ‘leadership and vision’ even if not enough was achieved by Vitals.

As for Steward’s involvement, Muscat told the judge that it would have been “an irresponsible government” to stop a company with an international track record, like Steward’s, from getting involved.

In 2021, Muscat said he did a lot right. Three years is a long time, however. Since then, the auditor general has documented all that was wrong with the deal, from start to finish.

Mr Justice Depasquale agreed, slamming the deal as fraudulent. And the Vitals inquiry has supplied further evidence. Does Muscat still preen himself on what he got right?

Let’s begin with a clamorous detail. He told the judge he couldn’t remember anything about a €100 million side-deal – the sum Steward was promised if, for whatever reason, the deal fell through. Two years later, however, he was assuring the public that the cabinet knew about it (even as certain members of that cabinet denied it). Which is it?

Now, let’s focus on what he says he did right. He says he showed leadership and vision. Where and when?

Leadership involves taking initiative. Vision that’s blind to the mess is a contradiction in terms. The auditor general, a judge and an inquiring magistrate have all concluded that Vitals was unchecked, it missed every milestone and the goalposts kept being shifted to accommodate it.

Joseph Muscat says he showed leadership and vision. Where and when? Leadership involves taking initiative. Vision that’s blind to the mess is a contradiction in terms- Ranier Fsadni

If that’s true, then Muscat showed no leadership. Even if he did nothing wrong, he got nothing right. How does he explain it?

In the past, his answer was that he left it in Mizzi’s hands. But that’s not good enough. For part of the period – April 2016 to June 2017 – Mizzi was a minister within the office of the prime minister, transferred there by Muscat in the post-Panama Papers reshuffle.

At the time, Muscat told the public, which was disturbed that Mizzi hadn’t been sacked outright, that, in OPM, Mizzi would be under his watchful eye. So Mizzi shouldn’t have been operating on his own. If he was, Muscat didn’t even get the basics of leadership and oversight right.

Then there’s the second boast: that it would have been “irresponsible” to keep a company with an international track record, like Steward, out of Malta.

If that’s the case, by Muscat’s own standard, was it responsible to grant the concession to Vitals, a company with absolutely no experience, let alone a good track record, anywhere? Again, this question has nothing to do with the criminal charges and everything to do with what he swore, under oath, three years ago.

There’s a lot at stake here. The Vitals inquiry report says that, on May 27, 2016, shortly before Vitals took control over the hospitals, Muscat received a confidential e-mail from Shiv Nair. The e-mail forwarded details raising grave doubts about Ram Tumuluri, the legitimacy of Vitals and its likely problems in getting enough investors.

Think about what an ordinary chief executive would do here. Explode, demand explanations and further due diligence and call an urgent meeting.

Muscat forwarded the e-mail to Schembri without comment. Four days later, Schembri forwarded it to Mizzi without comment.

OPM requested a due diligence report from Malta Enterprise, which commissioned one. On June 20, the requested report confirmed the issues raised in Nair’s e-mail, including that there was ‘little confidence’ that the consortium had the required funds.

That same month, Vitals took over the hospitals anyway.

The inquiry report found no evidence that the June due diligence report was ever seen by Muscat. But, if he didn’t see it, does it mean he didn’t demand one in spite of the e-mail? He should tell us.

Over the next two years, everything Muscat had been warned about was confirmed. Yet, even then, he took no action. Nor did he revise his view of Mizzi, whom he continued to entrust with the deal.

There’s precious little evidence that he did anything right. How come?