Oil will surface when mixed with water, according to chemistry and an old Maltese adage. However, the truth still has to emerge in the oil corruption scandal 10 years after the first charges were pressed in court.

Seven individuals had been arraigned in 2013. Two have been acquitted, the latest one just days ago.

At the time of writing, the judgment clearing former Enemalta financial controller Tarcisio Mifsud was still not available online, so the presiding magistrate’s motivation and reasons for reaching such a conclusion cannot be studied.

However, when former chief projects officer Ray Ferris was acquitted in 2015, the magistrate – since promoted to judge – had noted that his version of events was more credible than George Farrugia’s, the oil trader granted a presidential pardon to spill the beans.

The court had remarked that the corruption charge was “possibly made in error” as no evidence was produced to back it up and the same applied to charges of fraud.

If the same or a similar conclusion was made by the magistrate hearing the Mifsud case, the prosecution could be facing serious problems unless the evidence at its disposal does not go beyond what has been submitted in court so far. This could well turn out to be the best Christmas of all for the five-remaining accused.

The oil scandal probe, it is worth bearing in mind, was sparked off by a report on Malta Today, alleging that petrochemist Frank Sammut took kickbacks on Enemalta oil tenders awarded to Dutch commodities firm Trafigura around 2004. Thankfully, the report did not have the same tragic consequences that followed the revelations made by Daphne Caruana Galizia post-Panama Papers.

The police had built their case against the seven men arraigned on Farrugia’s accounts, hence the presidential pardon granted to him. As much had been admitted by the present police commissioner, Angelo Gafà, in 2014, when he held the rank of inspector and was investigating the case.

He had said in parliament he believed Farrugia had told the truth because he was always consistent in what he said. The magistrate presiding over the Ferris case certainly disagreed with him. Mifsud could possibly have been acquitted for the same reasons too.

In line with the conditions imposed when he was granted a pardon, Farrugia is bound to say the whole truth and only the truth both in connection with the court case and also any other inquiry that could be held in connection with fuel procurement.

Inquiries and police investigations usually being confidential and a close-guarded secret, it cannot be ascertained whether any ‘new’ probes had, in fact, been held. It remains unknown whether the minister at the time responsible for Enemalta – Austin Gatt – had been questioned by the police or whether he was the subject of a magisterial inquiry in view of the allegations that had been made.

The Sunday Times had reported about emails referring to a meeting “with the minister”, meetings with “A.G.” and a meeting with “Aust”.

What happens now? The police are still in time to appeal the latest Mifsud judgment. However, that is unlikely to stop many from doubting how solid the case of the prosecution is in the oil scandal case. Judging by comments made by members of the judiciary, the same doubts also arise about some high-profile cases before the courts now.

The police commissioner owes the people an explanation, both on the latest development and also about when he was investigating the oil scandal allegations.