To describe the past year as turbulent would be an understatement. What stands out the most, however, is Joseph Muscat’s spectacular fall from grace. In a few short months, the embattled prime minister has gone from being at the top of his game to announcing his resignation under the shadow of daily protests and intense international scrutiny.

Questions surrounded whether Muscat would resign in 2019 as the decade entered its final year, but few believed it would actually happen.

A survey run by Malta Today in the first week of the year confirmed this general feeling: 44.2 per cent believed he would stay on, compared to 20.7 per cent who thought he would step down sometime during the year. Half-way through the year, the former group seemed to be right.

An electoral victory of 42,000 votes over the PN in the MEP elections and one of almost 47,000 votes in the local council elections seemed not only to solidify Muscat’s position in the eyes of the majority, but to make him practically untouchable.

It was soon after these electoral victories that Muscat was spotted with the Latin word invictus (undefeated) tattooed across his right bicep. With ten electoral victories under his belt, it was difficult, at the time, to argue otherwise.

This is not to say that he did not face criticism throughout the year, in spite of his party’s best electoral results since Independence.

His response to the standoffs with NGO vessels who had rescued migrants attracted criticism from NGOs due to the fact that migrants were left stranded at sea for days – and sometimes weeks – at a time.

His defence of the government’s welcoming arms to foreigners attracted criticism from the PN and from the more right-wing elements of society, while the government’s track record – or lack thereof – in the environmental sector also drew protests throughout the year, with the actual concept of protests becoming a more and more popular means for the public to make their voices heard.

But above all, it was on two things in particular that Muscat garnered criticism most, and these would eventually ensure that 2019 was the year that turned Muscat’s legacy into one of ignominy rather than glory.

The first was his government’s handling of matters surrounding the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia. While Muscat continued to affirm that he would leave no stone unturned in getting justice for Caruana Galizia, his government’s constant and incessant commitment to the clearing a memorial to the journalist in Valletta and the flip-flopping and stalling in opening a public inquiry into the murder indicated otherwise. 

A public inquiry was eventually opened, but it was only after pressure from the Council of Europe, and the memorial has now – for the first time – remained intact for over two weeks, but only after Yorgen Fenech was charged with being the mastermind behind the journalist’s murder, and only after Muscat’s closest ally was implicated in the alleged plot.

This brings us to the second point – and ultimately the point that broke the proverbial camel’s back.

A whole three years after the Panama Papers story broke, exposing the secret companies belonging to former Minister Konrad Mizzi and to the prime minister’s now former chief of staff Keith Schembri, Muscat spent the bulk of 2019 defending the duo.

His defence of Schembri – right up until the day he resigned – is of particular note.  Schembri is seen by many as having been Muscat’s closest ally and Schembri himself boasted to journalists that he was the person who had brought ten electoral victories to the Labour Party. Muscat’s defence has, even since 2016, been steadfast.

He defended Schembri when it was revealed that he owned a company in Panama, set up days after Labour took power in 2013, and continued to defend him when it was exposed that a company called 17 Black – owned by business tycoon, Electrogas shareholder, and now alleged murder mastermind Yorgen Fenech – and another called Macbridge were the two target clients for Schembri’s and Mizzi’s companies, with the latter two receiving €5,000 every day.

“Who told you he’s being investigated?” Muscat told journalists when he was asked whether Schembri should resign given that a criminal investigation was underway.

“The inquiry is into 17 Black not Keith Schembri,” he had said before reaffirming his faith in Schembri.

The defence continued into this year, even after a court in April ordered that evidence from the Panama Papers scandal should be preserved because of indications that a crime may have been committed.

“This is a matter for an inquiry, not something to ask out of curiousity”, Muscat had said when quizzed on whether he had asked Schembri about 17 Black.

The defence continued right up until the day that Schembri resigned under the cloud of being implicated in the murder of Caruana Galizia.

“He told me that he will be resigning as my chief of staff today so that the government can start moving forward and continue its work in a more serene manner.

“I thank Keith for the work he has done for the government over the past few years. I believe he has played a crucial role. I thank him for shouldering this burden on his part.

“I take responsibility for the fact that I have kept him on as my chief of staff.  He has now decided to move on. He had already signalled to me that he wanted to move on.”

The choice of words which Muscat used to announce Schembri’s resignation is of special note, with his claim that Schembri had “moved on” not accurately describing the nature and the context of the resignation, which came amid an almost unprecedented political crisis and his implication in the murder of a journalist. It emerged very soon after the announcement, that Schembri had been arrested by police in connection with the murder.

Muscat’s resignation announcement came only days later.

It is indisputable that Muscat’s exit would come at some point before the next general election, but it would be very reasonable to conclude that Muscat was waiting for the opportune moment to make a dignified, perhaps even glorious, exit.

His pursuit of a top European post after his party’s historic electoral victory reflected just that, and when his hopes were dashed, he retreated to the domestic seat of power and insisted that he would remain in office for some time to come – saying that the budget presented in October would not be his last.

However, it was his inaction on Schembri and, to a lesser extent, Mizzi which came back to haunt him with a vengeance. With even Yorgen Fenech turning his guns onto Schembri, and with Muscat announcing that Fenech had not been granted a presidential pardon, Muscat all but lost the little control over the situation that he had.

Thousands took to the streets in protest, and in spite of his (and other cabinet members’) best efforts to turn his great defence of Schembri into a story of great betrayal, Muscat’s fate was sealed.

2019 was the year that ultimately brought about Muscat’s resignation, but the seeds had been sown as far back as 2016 – begging a question of hypothesis perhaps whirling even around Muscat’s own head: how different could things have been had Muscat done the right thing and thrown Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi out right after the Panama Papers scandal emerged? 

Reality is, however, anything but a hypothesis, and the reality is that Muscat’s transformation from ‘invictus’ to ignominious was sealed by his own inaction – inaction which has finally caught up with him as the year draws to a close.