The election campaign has been dominated by allegations of corruption and money laundering within Prime Minister Joseph Muscat’s inner circle, and with 3 June now just more than a week away it is imperative that the public be given access to some concrete information concerning the infamous inquiries.

PN Leader Simon Busuttil has twice submitted documents which he claims are clear evidence that the Prime Minister’s chief of staff Keith Schembri was involved in money laundering, in cases also involving Nexia BT’s Brian Tonna and former Allied Newspapers managing director Adrian Hillman.

However, Dr Busuttil has remained worryingly coy about the exact contents of the documents, and has stated that he did not intend to release the information to the public in the coming weeks, claiming that he needed to protect his sources.

This presents a puzzling conundrum, while the allegations have serious implications on the state of our democracy, until the PN Leader is able to provide concrete evidence to the public, that’s all they will remain until the end of the magisterial inquiry, which will most likely be after the general election on 3 June. Dr Busuttil has said that it would be up to the people to pass judgement, but how can the electorate be expected to make an informed decision when they have only half the information available.

The publication of the evidence is more important now, after the PM’s wild claims that Malta has supposedly been informed that the whole Egrant saga is an invention by the Kremlin.

In an era of post-truth politics where doubt in the integrity and honesty of politicians is at an all time high, the PN Leader cannot simply expect the public to believe his claims without being presented with the cold, hard facts.

History has led to an incredibly divisive political landscape, were 90% of the population follow their political party as avidly as a football team, and the Leader is granted an almost saint-like status.

Dr Busuttil must understand that 25 years of PN Leadership has lead to a sentiment of distrust for the party, and the Farrugia couple alone is not enough to sway traditional Labour and floating voters.

The PN needs to show the public evidence in order to be credible to more than 50% of the population. With the snap election just round the corner, people should be able to make a clear and informed decision.

This unfortunately speaks volumes about the state of transparency in this country. On one hand we have two damning FIAU reports which are kept away from public eye, a Police Commissioner who would rather eat some rabbit than conduct serious investigations, and the Prime Minister and his Chief of Staff seemingly drowning under the weight of corruption allegations.

Yet on the other, his counterpart does not want to provide the public with the all the information it rightly deserves before making such a monumental decision on 3 June.

Dr Busuttil praises himself for being ‘the voice of the people’ and he is correct to some degree, with the PM, the Police Commissioner, and the AG seemingly more interested in hiding behind legal jargon rather than taking action.

While we do understand that the rules of engagement dictate that the Magistrate should be given all the space such a serious inquiry entails without turning the evidence to the people’s court of judgement before it is properly assessed by the Magistrate himself, Dr. Busuttil is a politician and is expected to provide the public with the information they rightly deserve.

Busuttil has already been criticised for taking his “8 boxes of irrefutable proof” to one magistrate instead of the other, even if, as this newspaper explained earlier this week, this was the correct thing to do. It is also no wonder that Labour span the idea that the boxes were empty and that Busuttil is just playing for time.

Busuttil says the correct thing to do with the evidence is to take it to the courts, and not make it public. But on 3 June the public will be deciding the political fate of this country, not some magistrate. People need to know how damning the evidence is and they must make that decision now. The court will also make its own decision, but it will probably be too late by then.