Minister Konrad Mizzi this week lashed out at this newspaper and accused it of having lied in his regard when we published an article in his respect last summer, an article that had asked valid questions based on valid information.

That article was based on two publicly-available documents that showed how the then energy minister had set up his Panama-New Zealand financial structure on the very same day that the new power station’s former lead partner, Gasol, sold its shares in the consortium for an undisclosed sum – a rather strange coincidence that up to this day begs further explanation. But instead of an explanation, the minister is still simply calling it a lie when it is anything but.

That article, incidentally, was followed by a second that detailed how it was international law firm Mossack Fonseca, which is at the epicentre of the global Panama Papers scandal that had handled the energy minister’s international financial set-up as well as that of the Seychelles-based mother company and controlling interest of Gasol.

It is clear that any government worth its salt would come forward and offer concrete explanations for these coincidences, but no explanation was given, nor was an interview this newspaper had requested with the minister at the time – so that he could provide explanations – given.

Now, several months down the line, the minister comes out with video propaganda being propagated on social media simply claiming that the whole story was a lie, despite the fact that we have published those public documents showing very clearly in black and white what we were saying.

There are some basic questions that we had wanted to ask the minister in that interview he declined. We asked some of these questions publicly at the time, and we are asking them again now:

·                   How exactly did the government end up negotiating an 18-year power and gas purchase agreement worth billions of euros in turnover with a consortium that: (i) on the one hand included giants Socar and Siemens; but (ii) on the other hand had the lead developer of Gasol, a tiny company without a similarly credible track record that was ultimately controlled by a brass-plate company registered at Mossack Fonseca’s offices in the secretive jurisdiction of the Seychelles.

·                   What due diligence did the government carry out on the Seychelles-controlled Gasol, particularly with regard to the full identification of its beneficial owners in order to rule out that they do not include, directly or through other shell companies, people with whom a government really should not be doing business?

·                   Who were the beneficial owners of Gasol in the Seychelles while they had an interest in the agreement, what were their competencies and past achievements in power and gas projects and what were their global political and business connections?

·                   Who were the individuals representing the Seychelles-controlled Gasol at the negotiating table with the government and where are they now?

·                   Why did Gasol, which was listed on the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market, cancel its listing soon after the consortium was awarded the 18-year contract?

·                   What was the exact role of Gasol in the consortium and in the project, considering that it exited the project as soon as the deal and its financing were arranged, and very specifically in the same week in July 2015 in which the financing package was finalised and signed? 

·                   What liquidation did Gasol pocket for the disposal of its 30 per cent share on exiting the then taxpayer-guaranteed project, and what was the basis on which that liquidation was computed?

·                   Who were the shareholders holding an interest of five per cent or more in the share capital of Gasol at the date of its exit from the taxpayer-guaranteed project?

·                   Why are those two important transactions which occurred on 22 July 2015 and which were traceable to entities that were ultimately controlled at the registered offices of the same international legal network of Mossack Fonseca, which faces accusations of aiding money laundering still being dismissed as lies when, while they may be coincidences, still being incorrectly described as lies?