However much the government tries to fend off the strong criticism being levelled at the way a Danish company was contracted to supply new generation plant for the extension of the Delimara power station, the hard fact remains there is much in the Auditor General's report that raises concern over the award of the contract. The government's reaction has been weak and unconvincing and its decision not to release the contract adds fuel to the controversy and strengthens the hand of all those, including the opposition, who are rightly clamouring for transparency and political accountability.

When a contract of the nature and size as that of the Delimara power plant raises doubts as to the manner it is awarded, as the contract given to the Danish company has done, the least one would have expected was total transparency. Instead, the government chooses, unwisely, to refuse to release the contract, leading to further doubts and to the fanning of greater speculation. The government was seen to have stumbled right from the start when, after the laying of the Auditor General's report on the Table of the House of Representatives, the Finance Ministry said that, after a long and detailed investigation, no evidence of corruption had been found.

This is not what the Auditor General said. What he said was that he did not come across any hard and conclusive evidence of corruption. Unless the Auditor General clarifies the point, this may well be taken to mean that corruption could not be excluded.

The Auditor General's report identifies what it describes as "various cases of administrative shortcomings" but, even on this, the comments made are most significant and have to be read carefully for a true understanding of the implications. It says that in "a number of instances the shortcomings were due mostly either to lack of experience in the procurement process adopted during this tender and/or insufficient coordination between the two entities (Enemalta and the Department of Contracts)..." The operative words here are "number" and "mostly". So, in other words, there were other shortcomings that do not fall within this parameter. What were they?

The Auditor General questioned the undue haste with which the agreement was signed and, very tellingly, complained of lack of cooperation from "certain stakeholders" who claimed they could not recall certain events or information. Should not this very significant remark, on its own, call for further investigation? It most definitely should, that is, if the government wants to ensure that the process is completely above board.

And is it not scandalous to appoint as consultants a firm that has been blacklisted by the World Bank? There are other observations that raise concern. One is over the tender specifications on emission levels and the other over the high risk posed by the choice of a prototype combination instead of the required tried and tested plant. Quite correctly, the report says that much of the controversy could have been avoided had the tendering process been stopped and a fresh call made to reflect the change in specifications.

Transparency and accountability are the hallmarks of good governance. If the government feels it stands on solid ground in this case, the very, very least it can do is to release the contract.

Quite coincidentally, it has been announced that Malta has slipped eight places in Transparency International's annual survey of perceived corruption for last year. This is quite a fall, a matter that ought to be a source of great worry to all.