The more the Prime Minister and his predecessor complain about the timing of the conclusion of the magisterial inquiry into the hospitals’ contract, the more they expose their fear of what the report contains.

Because, if they think that the magistrate’s conclusions are harmless to Labour and individuals who represented it, they would not be mentioning the timing. Or else, they would say that the timing was perfect as the Labour movement was emerging squeaky clean just before an election.

The fact that their main concern is the timing – as the conclusion of the inquiry arrived a few weeks before Malta goes to the polls – shows that they know that what’s in the report is not favourable. Prime Minister Robert Abela has been harping about the timing for months, which indicates that he was already planning his defence strategy long before the day of reckoning arrived.

It is rich on the Prime Minister’s part to express himself so angrily about this “timing” when his government does its best to distribute good tidings such as the tax refund cheques, adjustments of pensions and a presidential pardon to hundreds who defrauded the country in the weeks preceding the election.

And what about the official decision to stop marina plans for Marsascala, the opening of a concert area in Ta’ Qali and the launching of nine schemes by Malta Enterprise, to mention just three things that happened on Friday? Don’t these instances amount to attempts to influence voters in a much more direct way than the conclusion of an inquiry?

That, then, Abela goes on to speak the way he did on Workers’ Day is another clear sign that his back is against the wall. His address in Valletta last Wednesday has already found its place among the topmost divisive speeches in Maltese politics. His call for Labourites not to fall for provocation will only lead to more tension in a country that is already feeling the strain of an election that is round the corner.

Muscat himself is not staying away from stirring partisan emotions as he feebly tries to defend himself after it became publicly known that the magistrate had concluded her inquiry report. His comment that Labourites are being persecuted – the institutions are working against Labourites, he said – is nothing but an effort to raise tempers.

What is he suggesting when he says that? That no action should be taken against Labourites who commit a crime, simply because they are Labourites? Is he referring to the court proceedings taking place against hundreds who took social services benefits they were not entitled to?

Once again, Robert Abela has found himself having to defend Muscat and, also, having to face political difficulties that Muscat has now led Abela into. It happened, for example, when Malta was grey-listed by the Financial Action Task Force. Malta’s one-year purgatory as a grey-listed country took place with Abela as Prime Minister, but the FATF label that Malta was an “untrustworthy financial jurisdiction” was given for what had happened with Muscat as Prime Minister.

Abela was the one who oversaw the removal of Konrad Mizzi from the Labour Party, not Muscat, who had defended him to the hilt even when the Panama Papers story broke. Muscat’s other right hand man, Keith Schembri, was arrested and charged with money laundering when Abela was PM, and it was therefore Abela who had to face the political repercussions.

Abela, of course, has his own faults. When he took over from Muscat, his government kept passing on millions of euros for the running of three hospitals in a deal which was the subject of this magisterial inquiry, and which, in a separate case instituted by former Nationalist Party leader Adrian Delia, was described by a judge as being “fraudulent”.

This is a blame that Abela must carry.

Abela must also shoulder responsibility for what he says, and his constant attacks on the judiciary are not something he should be proud of. What he has said about this magisterial inquiry is only the latest among a long string of attempts to hinder or influence the Bench.

He has questioned their sentencing policy.

He said, in Parliament no less, that they judge in the opposition’s favour so as not to be subject to their criticism.

He said that the courts are being used for the government’s powers to be passed on to the opposition.

He wrote to the Chief Justice complaining that the Jean Paul Sofia inquiry was taking too long to complete.

And now, in his latest inflammatory outburst, Abela has linked the European Parliament and local councils elections to a vote in favour or against the judiciary.

How low is the Prime Minister prepared to go?