Journalists report, voters decide. That basic axiom has been followed to the letter by much of the Maltese press in the reporting on Panamagate. However, in the wake of the continuing revelations on Konrad Mizzi’s and Keith Schembri’s secret companies in Panama (and elsewhere in the latter’s case), the press is soon going to have to face up to a major reporting decision.

So far, each time the Panama Papers contradict the declarations made by Mizzi or Schembri, the press has generally followed the convention of simply pointing out the divergences. The two competing versions have been merely juxtaposed, leaving it up to the public to decide which they trusted most.

However, the time is fast approaching when the press needs to decide whether simply juxtaposing different versions of the details is enough.

The contradictions are piling up. In itself that is news. The gap between what Mizzi and Schembri say and what the Panama Papers indicate is becoming so large that the press must explicitly raise two questions.

Is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth being said? Are there any prima facie indications of corruption?

This isn’t simply a matter of editorial comment. It is a matter of reportage as well. The press should solicit the opinion of financial and legal experts about whether, in their experience, there is enough evidence that would ordinarily make the police or a judge decide that there is a case to answer for.

If experts think that there is a legal case, that is newsworthy. Likewise, if they don’t think so, that too is worth reporting.

Journalists report, voters decide.

This line of reporting is different from what the press has generally pursued so far.

Yes, the resignation or firing of Mizzi and Schembri has been demanded by this newspaper and others. But the resignation has been demanded on political grounds – that the political irresponsibility of the two was grave enough to warrant their removal.

The issue of political irresponsibility does not require further investigation. All the evidence we need is available.

Reporting that the denials and evasions themselves could suggest corruption – at least to certain experts – is an entirely different matter. It stops being a matter of demanding resignations. It becomes a matter of demanding investigation.

The Malta Independent has already demanded an investigation.

Schembri and Mizzi have denied knowing quite what their financial advisor was up to. Those claims now need to be put together and assessed in the light of available evidence

Independent MP Marlene Farrugia has requested a parliamentary investigation.

Still, it is one thing to make such a demand on the basis of personal or editorial opinion (a grave matter in itself) but it is another, even more grave, to base that opinion on expert judgement that there could be a legal case to answer for.

Arguably, such issues should have been raised from the beginning. However, the new evidence emerging from the Panama Papers now makes facing the issues unavoidable.

For example, last month one of Australia’s leading financial journalists, Neil Chenoweth, reported (having had direct access to the Panama Papers) that the e-mail correspondence spoke of Mizzi and Schembri entering business together. He also reported they made nine attempts to open bank accounts.

Schembri denied Chenoweth’s report. He accused Chenoweth of being entirely speculative. The report was an “absolute confusion”, conflating Mizzi and Schembri with other clients.

Schembri accused Chenoweth of being unduly influenced by people who wanted to cause damage both to him and to the Labour government.

Until now, those two versions have been reported side by side. We may have had our hunches. But we had no reporting to confirm or undermine them beyond doubt.

Now we do.

Allied Newspapers are partners of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists and the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and they too have direct access to the Panama Papers. As a result, we know with certainty that Chenoweth’s report was fair.

He was not confusing different clients. The correspondence identified the companies belonging to Mizzi and Schembri through their company codes. And one e-mail speaks of the trustees wanting to know more about Mizzi’s and Schembri’s “joint venture”, something that would engage both their companies.

The new reporting does not just confirm Chenoweth’s report, however. It also throws light on Schembri’s accusations. Chenoweth was falsely accused – a new fact that has come to light.

Yet, the press has not reported this. Surely it is worth reporting.

And surely it is worth asking: is it possible to make such accusations without knowing they are false? Is it possible to make them without malice? And if, in our best judgement, it is not possible, should the nation’s editors not say so?

Such questions are not purely rhetorical. Both Schembri and Mizzi have, on various points of detail, denied knowing quite what their financial advisor was up to. Those claims, too, now need to be put together and assessed in the light of the available evidence.

For example, when Mizzi was first asked for the name of his Panama company (or was it his trust), he said he could not remember because it was “something technical”.

Technical? The company is called Hearnville and the trust is called Roturua.

According to his own later account, he had written in his own hand those names just two weeks earlier, in his parliamentary declaration. He filled the form on the very same day that he travelled to Dubai – a busy day – however, he had no trouble whatsoever remembering the names or having access to the relevant papers.

But, apparently, he did have trouble – not just remembering the names but also whether they were “technical” or not – on the day when he was elected party deputy leader, when he had every reason to think he would be asked for information about the trust and the company.

Another example. Mizzi has denied ever personally authorising his financial advisor to state that his Panama company was to be used for “brokerage and consultancy”. He’s stated that any business activity was intended to commence after he retired from Maltese politics. Both he and Schembri have denied that they intended any joint venture.

How does this square with the correspondence? Mizzi’s financial advisor stated Mizzi’s “extensive expertise in waste management trading”. The company was set to start operating immediately.

Can such information have been given without Mizzi’s go-ahead? If it couldn’t, what does that make of Mizzi’s declarations/denials? Could that lead any reasonable expert judge to conclude that there could be more than meets the eye?

It is such questions that make the current phase of Panamagate a crunch time for Maltese journalism. The duty of reporting now goes beyond reporting what is in the e-mails.

ranierfsadni@europe.com