The government will no doubt be claiming a victory following its announcement yesterday that the European Commission is set to drop its investigation into the public procurement process for the major bone of contention that is the extension of the Delimara power station.

The Opposition will also be crying foul, and rightly so to a certain extent, in that the Commission had investigated the contract insofar as it relates to possible breaches of EU law, and not the whole matter lock, stock and barrel. Plus, public opinion, by and large, over the debacle is so skewed against the government that it will take a lot more than the Commission’s clearance on the parts of the problem it investigated to completely exonerate the authorities for the way the contract in all its multifaceted aspects has been handled.

There are two prongs to the problem with the Delimara debacle: the procurement process and the choice of technology for the extension. In any country but particularly in a country of this size and this population density, the choice of power generating technology needs to be chosen very, very carefully as pollution does not need to travel all that far to have ramifications on significant portions of the population. But more on this point later lest we digress.

The European Commission’s investigation was solely related to part of the public procurement process, not the technology chosen nor many of the aspects raised by the Auditor General and others still raised by the Labour Party.

While reassuring to a certain extent on the various corruption allegations being made, the Commission’s decision to drop its infringement case against Malta in by no means a comprehensive conclusion, and the people still deserve more answers.

Among the areas not investigated, as noted by the Opposition yesterday, were how BWSC’s agent in Malta had boasted of political and Enemalta contacts. Such boasting, particularly when related to employment prospects is no crime. If it were, almost every job applicant in the country could rightly be investigated over the contents of their CVs.

Then there is the question of the independence of Lahmeyer International, which had worked with BWSC in the past and which had been brought in by the government to consult on aspects of the contract’s adjudication. This has also been quite reasonably explained by BWSC itself. In a nutshell, Lahmeyer was contracted by the government to assess a portion of the technical evaluation of bids for the controversial project, and that its bid assessment had actually placed BWSC in third place out of the four bidders.

The other major issue not investigated as brought up by the Opposition was why the government had at first opted for a gas-fired extension only to later go for one that ran on heavy fuel oil, without such a major policy change having gone before Cabinet.

This is precisely the central point where the two debates – that over corruption allegations and that over the unfortunate choice of technology for the extension – merge.

Way back, this newspaper had first reported the extension tender, and applauded the fact that one of its central points was that the extension would need to be able to be converted for the use of natural gas in the future. But since then, the government has chosen the heavy fuel oil option, and declared that the investment required to upgrade the country’s infrastructure so as to cater for natural gas was too expensive.

The general consensus is that the type of technology chosen for the extension is probably the worst thing for the environment, but the best thing for the state coffers.

But, it must be asked, can we really put a price tag on public health? Moreover, the use of Malta as a test bed for new technologies has worked in some sectors, with success, but this particular case in point should certainly not be one of them - the risks are simply too high.

Back to the procurement process, the call for witnesses already questioned by the Auditor General to appear before the PAC should be heeded. This is a fundamental point considering the Auditor General had found no “hard evidence”, most likely due to a lack of cooperation from and apparent amnesia of some of those who had been called in for questioning.

Assuming all is indeed above board, the government should allow amnesiac witnesses to be called before the PAC to see if their memory has been refreshed in the meantime. The prospect is doubtful but that questioning must be done in a more public forum as provided for by the PAC.

If the government is to dispel once and for all the allegations of corruption and cover ups, it needs to allow the PAC to hear those witnesses, as demanded by the Opposition, lest that seed of doubt grows and is allowed to bloom.