So, finally, after months of delay, the government fulfilled its promise to publish the contracts it signed with Vitals on the running of three hospitals in Malta and Gozo. Or so the government wants the country to believe.

When, last week, Health Minister Chris Fearne released the documents providing for a €200 million investment in the redevelopment, maintenance and management of the Gozo, St Luke’s and Karin Grech hospitals, he said that “commercially sensitive details” had been deleted from the contracts. In fact, 43 consecutive pages were deleted from the services concession agreement alone.

Whoever carried out the redaction certainly opted to err on the side of caution. How often the main corridors and foyers are to be painted and the duration of the guarantee on waterproofing works were among the ‘sensitive details’ deleted. The very building plans for the new Barts’ medical school were also left out.

But there were far more serious omissions. For example, among the pages removed are those showing lists of equipment to be bought and installed by Vitals, concession milestones, termination payments and the parent company guarantee. The health services delivery agreement has 23 deleted pages. Effectively, there is no way of keeping tab of whether the agreements, all signed by Konrad Mizzi when still health minister, are being implemented as agreed and if any deadlines are being met.

The next day, Vitals said the withheld information was all at the government’s discretion, while Mr Fearne’s spokeswoman said the contracts had been vetted by the Health Ministry’s legal team.

The heavy-handed redactions have left the Medical Association of Malta very unamused. The doctors’ union is to write to the Public Accounts Committee to request a due diligence process on the company, which the MAM says does not know who its real owners are because the ownership structures were hidden by companies in the British Virgin Islands.

Effectively, with all the key deadlines and figures in the service concession agreement removed, the published contracts serve very little purpose if any. What was the purpose of leaving out “commercially sensitive details” when the government is not a commercial entity?

It has signed a 30-year agreement on behalf of a country and it must give account for its actions. It is essential for democracy and public debate and certainly in line with the Labour Party’s promises of openness. Instead, a vital sector as health has been shrouded in secrecy.

That the deadlines have been removed does not come across as a move to protect Vitals’ commercial interests but the government’s political interests. What emerges clearly is the government’s obsession with controlling the message, an obsession verging on institutionalised paranoia. Only that would explain why the health services delivery contract includes a provision which states that Vitals may not “communicate with representatives of the press, TV, radio or other communications media on any matter concerning this agreement or the services” without the government’s prior written consent.

A similar situation is emerging with regard to the controversial LNG tanker that is supposedly the responsibility of Electrogas. When the Nationalist Party recently said something was wrong with the tanker it was the government that replied and not the company. It is immensely preoccupying that the government appears to muzzle private companies with which it enters into private contracts so it may interpret what is written inside of them as it pleases.

This is offensive to public intelligence, demeaning to the companies concerned and a threat to this country’s democratic institutions.