Inquiries are held for specific reasons. They are mainly meant to establish facts, apportion blame and make recommendations to avoid a repeat. In public matters, they serve the common good and, as such, are in the public interest.

In the justice system, magisterial inquiries are held routinely whenever serious incidents/accidents occur. The findings help the police with their investigations and prosecutions.

There are ad hoc inquiries, usually ordered by the Government that appoints a board of inquiry for a specific purpose. The idea should still be the unearthing of the truth, determining responsibility as the case may be and making recommendations.

Unfortunately, the way things work out at times gives rise to the suspicion that the purpose of ordering such inquiries is merely to quell public anger and to give the impression – but only the impression – that wrongs will be put right.

There have been a few occasions over the years when the Government ordered inquiries only for the final report not to be released in full, or when only the conclusions were published, or the whole document being circulated after a long time and because of public pressure.

One Cabinet minister had ordered an inquiry but would not even publicly mention the names of those sitting on the board.

Not to mention the high profile case of former European Commissioner John Dalli who was forced to resign on the basis of a report drawn up by the European Union’s anti-fraud agency, OLAF. That report was handed over to the Attorney General’s Office in Malta in October but remains under wraps to this day.

Only last week, it was announced that the Government would not be releasing the findings of an inquiry conducted by a judge into the death of a 32-year-old illegal immigrant last June.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office said that since soldiers allegedly involved in the man’s death were still being tried, “it would not be prudent” to publish the findings at this stage.

Does this mean that the judge’s findings are different to the conclusions reached by the inquiring magistrate and to the facts unearthed by the police during their investigations and on which the court case against the soldiers is based?

If that is the case, then, for the sake of justice, those findings should be immediately communicated to the presiding magistrate in open court. If not, how exactly would the judge’s findings prejudice the soldiers’ case?

It is in the public interest that a clear explanation is given forthwith, otherwise doubts will linger.

Yet, this case goes even beyond the matter of a fair trial. The victim had died after allegedly being repeatedly hit in the groin while handcuffed, following his recapture by Armed Forces of Malta personnel after he escaped from the Safi detention centre from where he had already fled in 2009, a year after arriving in Malta.

If that is what really happened, then the implications are very clear and righting the wrongs, apart from punishing the culprits, is something that society demands.

Whether that is happening or not can only be determined after all the recommendations made are known and an independent audit is then held to certify that all the action that was suggested was in fact taken.

Ordering inquiries is a healthy exercise in accountability but there must also be transparency and this is best served by publishing the findings.

Public interest demands it.