One is likely to judge the decision made by the National Commission for Further and Higher Education on the future of the American University of Malta according to which side of the political divide one sits. The commission could be accused of bending over backwards to appease the government. Others would conclude its findings prove how right the Prime Minister was in putting his weight behind the project proposed by the Jordanian investors.

Looking at it objectively, the commission has decided to offer a university licence provided 16 conditions are met. Its chairman, Martin Scicluna, is on record saying there is no room for negotiation. Yet, the investor seems to have other thoughts. Its legal representative told the Times of Malta earlier this week “there is always plenty of space for discussion”.

The National Commission for Further and Higher Education now has to talk the talk and walk the walk. It must, firstly, ensure all 16 “non-negotiable” conditions as originally imposed are met and, secondly, ensure all the standards set remain throughout.

Otherwise, what Mr Scicluna said in an interview with The Sunday Times of Malta – that the 14-month-long due diligence process was “a thorough, professional, evidence-based and objective exercise in transparency and accountability” – would fall flat on its face.

The commission’s credibility will depend on the way in which it behaves forthwith, especially after Mr Scicluna expressed the hope that its decision “will serve as a benchmark for any such future exercises”.

The exercise was by no means an easy one, not in terms of evaluation per se, but mainly because the government, including the Prime Minister himself, unwisely jumped the gun and spoke as if the newly-announced project was already a done deal. Indeed, Mr Scicluna said publicly his commission was “unaffected by what the government has committed itself to do in its contract with Sadeen Education Investment Ltd regarding property, land and other issues”. Neither did it help when everybody was speaking in terms of a university when it was well known that an evaluation process had to happen first.

Irrespective of whether one agrees or not with the decision, the commission’s modus operandi is in itself an interesting case study. If only other entities, especially supposely independent and autonomous bodies, would follow suit.

Many bodies, even statutory ones, often come up with a whole range of excuses why certain information cannot be released, whether it is commercial sensitivity, wrong timing, investigations still in progress, data protection...

The National Commission for Further and Higher Education “felt it incumbent... to be transparent about this decision, which we knew would be a difficult one politically”, as Mr Scicluna put it. Even the names of people involved in the evaluation process were published.

Mr Scicluna explained why: “It was incumbent on us to show that the quality of people who are doing this was high, they were not afraid of being named and we were all taking responsibility and being accountable for this decision. I personally think this is an example that any other regulatory authorities might care to ponder and perhaps follow.”

He also stressed a point: “A lot of the arguments being made about good governance are due to a sense of guardedness about the decisions we make when a really open government has the ability to shine a searchlight on something like this and show that all due processes have been followed step by step.”

Some public entities may disagree, and they should say why. As for those in favour, they should stand and deliver.