It is most curious indeed why the individuals who have been implicated in the Panama Papers leaks, at least those who hold official positions within the government, do not just come out and publish the full documentation of their overseas holdings.

If they are truly as blameless of any misconduct as they claim, what harm could the publication of the documents asserting that innocence cause them? This is one of the million euro questions that have been nagging at the collective consciousness of the press and of the nation itself since the outbreak of the Panamagate scandal several weeks ago.

Here we are referring specifically to Minister Konrad Mizzi and the Office of the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Keith Schembri in their specific capacities as individuals who have, for better or worse, been appointed to help the Prime Minister run this country. 

This should, however, also apply to the otherwise private individuals who have been associated with these two people by the business they have done with them and the businesses they share with them.

Of course, the onus on the private individuals that have been named because of their seemingly dubious associations with political figures is not the same as the overriding onus on the political figures themselves. No newspaper in Malta with access to the Panama Papers has named private Maltese individuals whose names have cropped up in the Panama Papers, and for good reason: it is not our business. Although it may be the business of the taxman to look into these people’s financial set-ups, it is not ours – our sole focus has been the people who are politically exposed, and the people who are in cahoots with them.

It would be incredibly naïve for anyone to imagine for a split second that Messrs Schembri and Mizzi are waiting for the press to tell them about their own financial set-ups. They obviously know full well what they hold, and where, and how they went about setting up those holdings. And they certainly do not need the press to inform them.

As such, it was an absolute farce that was lost on many when Mr Schembri recently stated that he had written to the holders of the Panama Papers, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, to ask them what documents they had that pertained to him. And the ICIJ was absolutely correct to have denied that request. Does Mr Schembri really need the ICIJ to inform him about the overseas financial structures that were established for him with the help of Mossack Fonseca and its partners? And if perchance he was truly in the dark, all it would take to be informed would be a request to his own accountants.

Mr Schembri and Co. need to realise that they may be able to take large swathes of the population for fools but, as the adage goes: You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.

But publish they won’t. Instead, what we have been treated to on a weekly and sometimes daily basis is a near-comical situation in which every time the newspapers that have access to the full set of Panama Papers leaks – specifically The Malta Independent and The Times – publish what they have managed to uncover, those stories are met with flat denials, accusations of being in league with some kind of sinister cabal and hardly anything by way of explanation or clarification.

Many such articles are met with law suits, of which there have been several for both newspapers. In this context, what is interesting is which articles have not been met with law suits, but that is an analysis for another day.

Instead of protesting as they do, instead of the blanket denials, what these individuals need to do is something of a rarity among such people – and that something is called full disclosure. Full disclosure, however, is the territory of the completely innocent, and by refusing to fully disclose their financial structures they are, in effect, giving a most concerted impression that they are guilty of something.

Konrad Mizzi, all those weeks ago, purported to have fully disclosed his financial set-up when he gave the press a couple of documents attesting to his Panamanian company and his New Zealand trust. At the time the press could have almost congratulated him on ‘coming clean’, but since then so much more has been revealed that showed those documents to have been the mere tip of the proverbial iceberg.

If their financial wheelings and dealings are completely above board as they claim, the onus is on them to publish all the documentation that they can muster from the Mossack Fonsecas and Nexia BTs of this world who created their financial structures for them – before or after entering politics. Whatever they did in the past, they are in politics now and as such, the people must have full faith in them and they must be beyond reproach if they are to be worth their salt to the nation.

Instead, what is clearly happening is they are waiting to see what the press with access to the Panama Papers is able to dig up on them, and no doubt every morning they are rising to see what aspect of their financial machinations will be exposed by the newspapers, and how they will react without giving away too much, or anything at all for that matter.

The situation has now gone beyond the absurd and Mr Schembri and Dr Mizzi really need to put this endless speculation to rest and provide the media with full dossiers of their financial set-ups if they are to weather this storm and retain any sort of political dignity. 

This, we believe, will not happen but until it does they can rest assured that the press will not be intimidated and that it will keep on digging until it gets to the truth, whether it is hidden within the 11.5 million Panama Papers or elsewhere – and that, as another appropriate adage goes, they can take to the bank.