A question. Perhaps the question: would Manuel Mallia have been forced to depart as minister were it not for the avalanche of pressure from the media and Opposition – not to mention the strength of public feeling this case managed to generate? Only Joseph Muscat can answer that, but given how this unfortunate saga played out one is led to believe that he would have baulked.

Life may never again be the same for the Prime Minister. Up till three weeks ago he was perceived to be a Teflon coated leader with a cast iron grip on his party. The shooting episode has shown him up to be all too human with the uncertainties that this brings with it.

A few weeks ago we asked whether he was afraid of his Home Affairs Minister. Given his handling of a clear-cut situation, there is evidence to suggest that – despite a nine-seat majority and relatively fresh election victory – indeed he was. Or is, given that Dr Muscat extended an olive branch to Dr Mallia (saying he may return in another role in future) despite a show of defiance in the Prime Minister’s regard from the former Home Affairs Minister.

This is politics of the most bizarre kind. But perhaps we should not be surprised. Dr Mallia’s problem as a minister was not that he did not possess intelligence or shrewdness; but that he did not manage to apply it to the political field.

His forma mentis as a never-say-die defence lawyer also served to hinder rather than help him. In a court of law one can fight to the death because one has nothing to lose. But in politics one must always bear in mind that there can be life after death.

Whether that should be the case here very much depends on how one decides to assess the inquiry report. Though it has to be taken into account that no proper investigation of this kind can be carried out in a fortnight, the three retired judges who compiled it should have realised that before producing a rather superficial document which seemed to side-step certain conclusions.

For example, they questioned the veracity of Dr Mallia’s statements about whether he was aware his driver had shot at a car – rather than fired warning shots into the air – but they were not prepared to conclude he was economical with the truth. Instead they chose to use an ambiguous phrase, “if Dr Mallia is to be believed”, which seemed to be a rhetorical cop-out.

The judges also accepted without question Silvio Scerri’s very questionable assertion that he did not know the number plate of his minister’s official car as well as Kurt Farrugia’s statement that he only learnt the bullets hit the car from the Times of Malta – when, as they were told by the journalist concerned, this was not the case.

And as the Opposition leader has pointed out, why did they not ask the Prime Minister to give evidence on his state of knowledge when the incident took place? A number of questions remain.

But at least there were some positives to be drawn yesterday: broadcasting has been shifted to the Culture Ministry and an affable, as well as likeable individual, Carmelo Abela, took over the helm at Home Affairs. Which is not to say that does not pose another big question: will he be able to do what it takes to restore public confidence in the police force?

Sign up to our free newsletters

Get the best updates straight to your inbox:
Please select at least one mailing list.

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. We use Mailchimp as our marketing platform. By subscribing, you acknowledge that your information will be transferred to Mailchimp for processing.