Both the Minister at the Office of the Prime Minister, Konrad Mizzi and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Keith Schembri, have declared they intend to close down their secret companies in Panama. To my mind, this is by implication proof of wrongdoing.

Ever since the revelation of the existence of these secret offshore structures, Mizzi and Schembri have repeatedly maintained they are completely legal. The second part of their defence was that there is no proof of corruption or anything similar.

This defence did not answer the real question, which has never been whether the structures are legal or even operational, but whether they are politically acceptable.

Mizzi and Schembri have claimed that their secret trust-cum-company structure – stretched over 11,800km (that’s the shortest distance between New Zealand and Panama) – was meant for family estate planning purposes. Fine, then why are they closing down their companies? Let’s for a moment zero in on Mizzi.

Mizzi is an elected member of the House of Representatives, and an office-holder in the country’s administration. To my mind, that burdens him twice with the obligation to be transparent in his dealings, financial and otherwise. Like all his colleagues, he submits a declaration of assets for public scrutiny, and his income tax return may also be subjected to public scrutiny according to  law.

In other words, Mizzi can keep the public updated with transactions involving his offshore structure. If he transfers his immovable property to the structure – as the declared intention to plan the family estate necessarily implies – then he can keep his colleagues in Parliament and the electorate informed through official channels, as he is bound to anyway.

At this stage, the way things have developed begs the question: what motivated Mizzi to decide to close down his secret offshore company?  If the structure was legitimate from its very inception, why close it down?

Why not transfer his immovable property, as he had meant to do in the first place, and go on with his life? He would keep us informed about his transactions – that goes without saying – but go ahead and stick to his initial plan which he has been claiming for a whole year was honest and pure.

Our institutional checks and balances set-up is the equivalent of engaging a glutton to supervise the larder

He told us last year he had already mentioned the secret trust in his draft declaration of assets for the House of Representatives even before the Panama Papers were leaked. Which means that he has been saying for a whole year that he created a ‘secret’ structure, but with the intention of announcing it to the four winds. (Even though he had ‘forgotten’ to inform the Maltese tax authorities.)

Why? Why did he opt for secrecy if he already had the intention to publicly announce the existence of his secret trust, independently of the Panama Papers leak? And now, why is he closing his secret company down, if the structure was and still is legitimate?

With all due respect, I reckon this is muddled thinking at best. His inconsistency is his downfall.

If we turn to Schembri’s case, the situation is different.

Schembri is right to point out that he holds his enormously powerful office on a basis of trust.

Unlike Mizzi, Schembri has not been elected by the people, and has been hand-picked by the Prime Minister himself. Which makes his position even less tenable than Mizzi’s, if that is at all possible. In theory there are institutional checks and balances controlling Mizzi. (I say ‘in theory’ because, as the late Guido de Marco taught us during the criminal law course, facta lex, inventa fraus: as soon as a law is passed, somebody finds a way to flout it.) But in Schembri’s case, he is only accountable to the Prime Minister.

This raises many questions, but I shall focus on only three. Is Schembri abusing of the trust the Prime Minister has reposed in him? Should the Prime Minister keep reposing his trust in (the catalytic) Schembri? (No, I’m not begging the question; it’s a rhetorical device.)If the entire structure has been from the very first moment legitimate (that is, no tax evasion and no other money laundering activity either), then why is Schembri going to close down his secret company?

Wouldn’t it be more logical to use the structure for its intended purposes (family estate planning) and simply inform the Prime Minister, who would then relay the information to the electorate?

But, then again, last May we read that Schembri wanted even to avoid informing his Maltese bank(s) about his offshore structure. Not only, but like Mizzi, Schembri ‘forgot’ to inform the Maltese tax authorities about his New Zealand trust. I wonder why Brian Tonna did not remind Schembri of his obligation at law to register the trust.

To my understanding, in a mature democracy, Schembri would have lost his position within hours of the publication of the leaked documents, or, as soon as it transpired that he hadn’t registered the foreign trust with the Maltese tax authorities.

It is saddening to see that as a nation, we have still not reached that point. We need new rules on good governance.

At the moment, our institutional checks and balances set-up is the equivalent of engaging a glutton to supervise the larder.

Or, if in these Acapulco days you prefer a grislier simile, like putting a necrophile in charge of the cemetery.

Mark Sammut is the author of L-Aqwa fl-Ewropa. Il-Panama Papers u l-Poter.