The Prime Minister’s most trusted aide, Keith Schembri, and his team of lawyers yesterday tried to use the law courts as a convenience shop but failed miserably. When the magistrate – one of the latest to be appointed – stood firmly tall for justice, Mr Schembri dropped his libel suit against former Opposition leader Simon Busuttil.

The case involved accusations by Dr Busuttil that Mr Schembri had received kickbacks from what was to be eventually revealed as 17 Black, the company which, we now know, is owned by a top businessman connected to the controversial power station deal.

The libel suit was instituted over three years ago and, along the way, it became increasingly obvious that Mr Schembri was desperately trying to avoid being questioned by Dr Busuttil’s lawyers in open court. He succeeded until Magistrate Victor Axiaq yesterday decided he would have no more of such antics.

Mr Schembri first asked the magistrate to recuse himself on grounds that he once was the lawyer to a firm that gave financial advice to the Kasco Group, which the Prime Minister’s chief of staff owns. The magistrate over-ruled the request.

Then, Mr Schembri asked not to testify as he could incriminate himself.

One wonders why he brought up such an objection if although 17 Black and another firm, MacBridge, were included in draft business plans for Kasco as potential clients, he had no knowledge of any transfers or any payment being made.

So, how could he incriminate himself?

Silence spoke much louder than words yesterday. While a person has a right not to incriminate himself, once he avails himself of that right in civil proceedings – and the court having exempted him from answering certain questions not from testifying altogether – it is perfectly legitimate to draw inferences. Therefore, one is justified in drawing obvious conclusions on the basis of what was said, or not said, in court and the reasoning therefrom.

Mr Schembri brazenly said he had legal advice not to answer any questions linked to ongoing inquiries.

If, as he himself says, Mr Schembri has no problem in answering questions put by inquiring magistrates why should he refuse to do the same in an open court? Is it the magistrate that makes the difference? The fact that an inquiry is confidential? Or that lawyers representing a third party can ask questions in a libel suit?

His lawyers must certainly know what the law lays down: that a witness must answer all questions allowed by the court and, if not, he can be compelled to do so by being detained “until he shall have sworn and answered”.

Mr Schembri and his lawyers came up against a brick wall in the Magistrates’ Court yesterday to the extent that they decided for ‘closure’ by dropping the case.

But the matter does not stop there.

Mr Schembri is now on record saying he may have said something that could be incriminating. Political correctness and good governance demands that his boss would immediately summon him and demand an explanation. Did that happen?

As long as Mr Schembri remains in Castille, the shadow of the possibility, by his own admission, of him being guilty of wrongdoing will also be cast on the Prime Minister and his government.

The Prime Minister must act, fast.

But we won’t be holding our breath.