The tragic death of Gunner Matthew Psaila of the Armed Forces of Malta has prompted three formal inquiries into the circumstances leading to his death.
The first is the standard magisterial inquiry, which follows automatically under the law when an accidental death occurs.
The second is the AFM's board of inquiry, an internal military inquiry which, again, normally follows automatically when there has been an unusual incident.
Military boards of inquiry are held under terms and procedures clearly laid down in the manual of military law. They are, by definition, internal inquiries but, nonetheless, professionally objective. They are designed to expose lessons to be learnt from weaknesses in drills, procedures and training with a view to making improvements in the future and, where necessary, to apportion blame.
The announcement by the Office of the Prime Minister, which is directly responsible for the AFM, that it had decided to set up another inquiry led by Judge Victor Caruana Colombo was therefore, surprising. Its terms of reference are ostensibly broader: to examine "all aspects of the operation of C Company" including "training and command processes" and "all circumstances relating to the fatal accident". An overlap with the military board of inquiry however seems inescapable.
A redeeming feature about the Caruana Colombo inquiry, which will, inevitably, dabble in military matters, is that it includes former army commander Brigadier John Spiteri.
What was the purpose or potential training benefit to be derived from soldiers wading through flooded Chadwick Lakes fully loaded? Why was Gunner Psaila's disappearance under water not noticed earlier? Should the fact that Gunner Psaila could not swim have led to his exclusion from training with C Company, the AFM's quick reaction force? These and other questions should form the main thrust of both the AFM's board and, now, the Caruana Colombo inquiry.
It remains to be seen how the Office of the Prime Minister, which is responsible ultimately for receiving both inquiries, will handle their recommendations.
Indeed, this latest incident again raises wider questions about public inquiries in Malta and about ministerial accountability. Too often in the past serious incidents have occurred, inquiries have been established but their findings have either not been published or, if published, not followed up. The public is left with the distinct impression that government ministers use the setting up of an inquiry simply as a means to kick an embarrassing issue into the long grass.
Following a number of nasty incidents at the Corradino Correctional Facility last year, the Minister for Justice and Home Affairs established an inquiry into the state of the prison. What are the results of that inquiry?
An inquiry by the Civil Aviation Department in April last year into the potentially catastrophic near-miss involving an Air Malta Boeing 737 and an Italian light aircraft has still not been made public.
In May last year, Bastjan Borg, a mentally vulnerable man, was shot five times by the police, killing him. A magisterial inquiry was launched but the results have still not been published. Was an internal inquiry held and, if so, what was the outcome?
It is no good piling inquiries upon inquiries if the public does not see proper accountability for what they expose and lessons learnt to avoid similar tragedies in the future.