The much discussed case of ophthalmologist Franco Mercieca has compelled me to take a cursory look at the Code of Ethics of Ministers.

My first impression was that there are more than a couple of the 60 articles of this Code that, in the common perception, are more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

The second impression concerned the term ‘conflict of interest’ which has been milked dry in the current controversy. And truly enough it recurs some 10 times in the Code, yet it seems to me that many have not paid any heed to article 43 and to Prof. Ian Refalo’s prudent doubt on the matter.

The fact is that many are conveniently ignoring the overriding provision of the code in clause 43 which, inter alia, says that a minister “should devote his whole time to his official duties”.

Now it is an open secret that over the last 20 or more years various ministers have been allowed to go on lecturing at university and, rightfully, to receive remuneration for this work. No one ever protested. Simple, there were several ministers, and ministers-in-waiting, from both sides of the House, who were doing so or hoping to.

One should think that lecturing at University is as subject to clause 43 as performing eye operations.

Moreover, there is much more to say against barring a surgeon from operating for five years than barring a person from lecturing for the same length of time. So why has Mr Mercieca’s case now stood out like a sore thumb when all 10 fingers need seeing to?

Besides, does not article 42 of the same code say that “in such cases it is the Prime Minister who decides what the Minister should do and the Minister should submit any such case to him for his decision”? If one endorses the inclusion of an escape clause, then one should not be surprised, much less scandalised, in seeing it being made use of.

Perhaps it is simply time to revisit this Code.