The report that three former judges (I will refer to them as the Board) penned about Malliagate is now in the public domain; unfortunately minus several important documents that were attached to it by the same judges. The publication of these reports should be made ASAP for the sake of transparency and accountability.

The Board’s report  repeated facts that we had come to know thanks to the valid work of the media of the Nationalist Party and the independent media.  The video of the scene of the crime under the Regional Road tunnels posted on timesofmalta.com after the fateful shooting in Gzira confirmed in no uncertain terms that Mallia’s former driver had fired bullets at the car, something which maltarightnow.com and Daphne’s blog, basing themselves on eyewitnesses, had already reported.

Besides, the recording of a number of telephone conversations between the dramatis personae on the night of the fracas had been broadcast on Net TV and reproduced on various  news website. The media gave substantial information about what had happened and consequently the report of the Board was a bit of an anti-climax as it added no new substantial fact.

The report confirmed what most were certain of: there was a cover-up. It then blamed the police for the said cover-up while totally exculpating the politicians and their persons of trust. Not everyone was persuaded by the latter conclusion.

The public had already known that the police had messed it up. The recordings of the telephone conversations that had been broadcast before the publication of the report had clearly manifested all this. We had listened to these conversations with a great sense of shock. Many could not believe the Wild West antics reported and the casualness with which they were reported or commented about by people in authority.

What the report revealed for the first time were the undignified confrontations between the Acting Commissioner and other members of the Police Force in an attempt to find out who came up with the phrase “warning shots.”

The report points towards the Acting Commissioner both as the originator of the phrase and as the person who then passed it on to the Prime Minister’s head of communications.  Once more, no big shakes here. Anyone who had listened to the broadcast tapes already knew that the shots that were fired were no warning shots. The police knew this from the very first telephone call. The report of the former judges just confirmed what we already knew.

The Board said that the Acting Commissioner’s did not behave in a professional way and was also guilty of gross negligence. He has now been relieved of his role as Acting Commissioner but is back to his previous high position in the Police Corps. Are we to assume that the high position that he now occupies  does not entail that its incumbent has to be a true professional? Is this a role that could be occupied by the grossly negligent?

The report also informed us of another confrontation; this time between dismissed minister Manuel Mallia and the demoted  Acting Commissioner. The latter said that he had read the text of the press release to the minister while the other said that he had not. How messy! And if Dr Mallia was not to be believed that he had not seen the text of the press release is he to be believed that he did not know the real nature of the shots till very late at night? But Dr Mallia is now out of the picture.

The report of the Board also informed us that the government’s press release reference to shots fired in the air was included at the insistence of Head of Dr Mallia’s secretariat. It added that the same person, during his first submission of evidence to the board, was somewhat economical with the truth as he had denied even seeing the press release (qal li ma rax l-istqarrija). It turned out that he had seen it and changed parts of it including the just mentioned reference. No one in any of the recordings broadcast before the publication of the report ever said that shots were fired in the air. What the government press release said was totally novel.

It would have been nice had the Board inquired more about the inclusion of this phrase. It would also have been nice had the Board gave a credible rendition why we should believe that all this messing up was not connected, even vaguely, with a cover up. Alas this information is not forthcoming  from the report. This is just one of a series of deficiencies one finds in the report.

Neither did the Board explain how credible is the position that government officials were not privy of the information that had been published on news websites which proved that shots had been fired at the car.

More than an hour before the distribution of the press release everyone and his/her dog could read eyewitness reports of what happened and sometime later they could also see video evidence of the targeted car. Alas, the Board does not delve into this aspect of the debacle.

Perhaps the Board did not do this as it believed that this was not a question of a cover up but a question of crass incompetence and the Board was not tasked with investigating incompetence.

Taxpayers are, however, interested both in cover-ups and incompetence. Besides they are still interested to know the whole truth; something many believe has not been fully revealed.

This is why the controversy still rages on.