One of the biggest merits of a democracy is that the system has the checks and balances in place to ensure that the interests of the majority of people are safeguarded at all times while the minority enjoys the respect it deserves.

Regulators are the defenders of ethical standards whether these relate to consumer rights or to good governance in public and private enterprises. So when the ethics watchdogs are prevented from barking, the interests of the majority risk being brushed aside to the detriment of the well-being of society.

The failure of the Finance Minister to appoint the Accountancy Board after its term expired last October is a serious omission whether it was a result of carelessness or neglect. The Accountancy Board was established in 1979 and among its objectives is the formulation of a code of ethics for accountants and auditors. The quality assurance oversight committee of the same board oversees the adoption of standards of ethics and internal quality control of audit firms.

The Accountancy Board was appointed only after questions were raised by the Times of Malta.

In the prevailing Panama Papers saga, the members of this board have the onerous task of establishing whether the local auditing firm, Nexia BT, upheld the ethical standards that bind all accountancy firms practising in Malta.

The active role of accountancy and legal firms in giving advice to their clients on the setting up of trusts in jurisdictions that have at best dubious reputations is enough cause for a thorough investigation on whether the interests of the majority of law-abiding tax paying citizens are being sacrificed for the interest of a few big fish who may believe less in practising fiscal morality. Now that the Accountancy Board is in place, its members should make it their top priority to sniff for any malpractices whether these may be of a criminal or unethical nature.

But the Panama Papers scandal that has tainted various political systems in Europe and beyond involves more than just a breach of accounting ethics.

Good political governance cannot rest just on the finding of an Accountancy Board, however thorough it may be in its investigations on particular accountancy firms that are mentioned in this saga. In political life what matters is not so much that politicians and politically-exposed persons behave within the parameters of legality but that they do what is right.

If ordinary people are expected to pay their tax dues to the State in return for being provided with essential public services, politically-exposed persons and their consultants and business contacts are not expected to find ways and means of potentially avoiding this civic duty.

They are much less entitled to hide under the veil of secrecy that will prevent ordinary people on whose trust they depend from understanding where their money came from.

Public opinion on the behaviour of politically-exposed persons does not require the degree of proof that criminal law courts expect before passing judgment. It is therefore essential for a democracy to ensure that the role of regulators is not hindered in any way.

However, the protagonists of those involved in the Panama Papers scandal must subject themselves to the judgement not just of the Accountancy Board but, perhaps more so, of the collective opinion of a multitude of ordinary people who know what is and what is not acceptable behaviour.

In politics, perceptions of corruption can be as damaging as actual corruption.

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.