I am well aware that the regular readers of my articles  are divided about the merits of this column. For every one who sings the praises of the supple reasoning and concentrated focus, there is another who deplores the contortions and blinkered vision. Well, today, hopefully, is the Day of Reckoning.

I propose a national monument to Konrad Mizzi. Let me be judged on that.

A man with a contorted, blinkered vision would raise three objections to such a proposal. Not I. For there is not a single one that an objective, reasonable person could not brush aside with one hand, while writing “Don’t be rude!” with the other.

The first spurious objection concerns ethics. No man deserves a monument, we might be told, if his close associates get generous helpings of direct orders from a ministry that falls under him.

Now, it’s true we know that, over roughly a four-year period, the energy ministry gave out direct orders of circa €3 million, most of which went to close associates of Mizzi, for much of the period when the ministry was part of his portfolio. For example, his financial advisers, Nexia BT, got €130,000 in direct orders.

Oh, the politics of envy! Have such people forgotten one of the several reasons that Mizzi gave for setting up his secret company in Panama and his secret trust in New Zealand?

He was quite clear that he cared deeply for ethics. In 2016, he said he didn’t want his arrangements set up in Malta because he wanted to avoid being a client of a firm that might then win a tender issued by his ministry.

If that is not sensitivity to ethics and conflicts of interest, what is?

These critics are so envious of Labour’s successes that they are willing to suggest Mizzi was lying through his teeth when he mentioned his ethical concerns – given that Nexia BT, of which he was a client, received direct orders.

But for that to be true, it would mean that Mizzi believed his Panama company and New Zealand trust needed special justification. Whereas we all know that Mizzi has always answered all questions honestly and told us it was perfectly normal for a man of his calibre to have such a set-up.

Does anyone seriously doubt that it’s perfectly normal for someone of his calibre?

The second objection concerns the fact that Mizzi personally signed the secret agreement with Socar on the supply of LNG to Malta – the one that gave exclusivity to the Azerbaijani company for 18 years under conditions that so far have turned out to be very, very expensive for Malta.

These conditions were among the parts of the contract that were blacked out and kept from public scrutiny to protect the commercial sensitivity of the project.

Some suspicious minds are implying there is a connection between this contract and Azeri-linked money sent into a Dubai-based company; it happens to be the same entity that Mizzi’s Panama company was expecting to receive €150,000 a month from – at least according to an e-mail sent by Karl Cini, Mizzi’s financial adviser, on behalf of his client.

Where would Malta be without Konrad Mizzi?

That, at any rate, is the conspiracy theory. It shows no respect for the rule of law since it assumes Mizzi to be guilty, instead of presuming him innocent.

Any objective person has to allow for the fact that the financial adviser said €150,000 by accident. He should have said nothing. Mizzi assures us this is exactly what happened.

But don’t just take his word for it. Try typing on a smart phone and you’ll see how easy it is for auto-correct to write what you don’t mean.

Mind you, I still haven’t figured out what was so commercially sensitive about all the blacked-out bits in the contract. Nothing commercial has been risked by the truth coming out now. What was being risked if the truth came out then?

But then I know Mizzi is much more knowledgeable about commercial sensitivity than almost everyone else put together. Besides, he never said whose commercial sensitivity he was talking about.

The final objection is another strained attempt to play the ethics card. Leaked e-mail correspondence shows that Mizzi, when energy minister, forwarded internal Transport Malta e-mails to an Electrogas businessman.

A smart alec might say this is a case of a minister preferring to protect private commercial interests instead of the public interest. However, Transport Malta itself has said it sees no ethical problem. If Transport Malta has no problem, why should we?

You just have to agree with all those who insist that Mizzi is a long-suffering Cabinet minister, targeted unfairly because of his tremendous successes in delivering everything he promises, and doing all of this selflessly. Where would Malta be without him?

In the light of it all, I therefore think the case for a monument to Mizzi is unanswerable. No clear-eyed, objective person of sound mind, long experience, and the courage to speak truth to the power of the rabble, could possibly aver anything else.

The only remaining question is to find a suitable location and to calibrate the right cultural temperature for the unveiling.

Evidently, the location will in itself need to signal the scale of Mizzi’s achievement. The cultural moment will be marked by the exalted rank of the personage unveiling the monument. Objectively, it calls for Joseph Muscat but, given the friendship with Mizzi, one must avoid any semblance of cronyism, as it would be troubling to both.

Fortunately, there is an easy resolution.

I propose, therefore, that the monument should be erected in Mizzi’s home town of Paola, right beside that of Lorry Sant.

And since nothing would give him greater pleasure, the unveiling should be in the hands of the Deputy Prime Minister, Chris Fearne.

In a future column I shall turn to the vexing question of whether Paola should be renamed Città Hearnville or Fearneville. That is, unless either gentleman insists on ceding the privilege to the other. Or a secret Facebook group gets in first.

ranierfsadni@europe.com