One of the axioms of Maltese political life is that it is all too easy to claim corruption.

With our dense population living on top of each other, it is all too easy to imagine the worst of one’s neighbour, one’s colleague, one’s rival. And it is all too easy for people to believe that corruption exists and that someone is corrupt.

Even though we may put in all the safeguards in the world, we, as a small, densely populated nation, will never really rid ourselves of all taint, all belief in the existence of corruption.

Mepa is perhaps a case in point. Everyone accepts that the old PAPB system was riddled with corruption, and it is now quite clear the system was abused and turned into organised corruption.

So Mepa was created with the best of ideals. But over the years, the belief that corruption exists has not gone away and, in many people’s minds, even a simple refusal makes them believe that the decision was a corrupt one, as a decision to issue permit will invariably be interpreted by people other than the applicant as being arrived at through corruption.

In other words, claims and counter-claims of corruption are endemic to Maltese society.

However, time and again, yet another of Maltese institutions, the Courts of Justice, comes to the rescue and sifts through all the so easy claims of corruption to uncover the truth.

Of course, the Courts themselves are not infallible and, such is the very deep public perception of corruption everywhere that people may still associate the Courts themselves with the overlying corruption. However, that is not the way most people look at the Courts, as otherwise people would not go to Court any more.

Last week, the Court of Magistrates acquitted two Mepa officials of allegations of corruption in the JPO (Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando) case.

The case, one remembers, was Labour’s Weapon of Mass Destruction at the last election. On the Saturday before the election, Labour leader Alfred Sant unveiled what he said was a case of corruption: JPO’s bid to create, through an intermediary, a disco at Mistra.

It may have been a wrong venture all around, given that Mistra with some exceptions is relatively unspoilt, and that the area had been earmarked as a Natura 2000 area.

But Dr Sant, much as his successor today, tends to see corruption everywhere and in this case he claimed that JPO must have obtained the permit through corrupt means. JPO challenged Dr Sant to take the case to the police and in fact he took the case himself, anticipating Dr Sant by a short time.

The police investigated and took two senior Mepa officials to court on charges of corruption. Now the Court has thrown out the charge. Reading the magistrate’s judgement, it is clear that JPO did put pressure on them, but in no way did he try to bribe them. They did not derive any benefit from the approval of the application. Nor was the decision taken by them but by a whole Board.

So much is clear. But who will pay for the damage done to their good name? And the stress it caused them as they were approaching retirement age? There will inevitably be people who will still believe corruption took place.

Now this is being written by someone who has many times faced, and still is facing, the Court in the duty of a journalist, and who has even sometimes been found guilty. It is only through the careful sifting by the Court of the available evidence that truth is sifted from falsehood. Of course, it also matters that either side does its homework well and draws the Court’s attention to the relevant evidence, follows up on the dates for appearances in Court and so on. Still, allegations come ten a penny. It is only after the Court has pronounced itself that one can claim corruption or the absence of such.

The available empirical evidence is that Dr Sant’s allegations regarding JPO did not bring about any surge in favour of Labour. On the contrary, as one remembers from those chaotic days, they and JPO’s energetic self-defence actually produced a surge in favour of him, maybe of his party as well. True, one must factor in Labour’s mishandling of the case: it had built a good case for a change in the country’s leadership. It did not need any corruption claim. And when it made it, much like a third-rate tabloid paper, it left it till it was too late to make an impact.

Let this case serve as a lesson, though one doubts. Some time ago, Labour claimed corruption in the ICT contracts handled at MCAST. The allegation was not proved and the person involved was fully exonerated. Apart from the human cost suffered, who remembers the outcome? People remember the mud that was thrown. Mud sticks.

So too, remember the bus ticketing affair? And the many Mater Dei contracts. Who remembers the outcome? Mud sticks. That is what people believe.

We would have been in a far worse state had there not been Courts to sift through the evidence. Even so, the worst of it all is that mud sticks, people remember the mud more than the acquittal. Whatever else has happened, you will still find people who believe the Court is riddled with corruption as well. In this as in any other case, hurried judgements make most damage.

On such rather flimsy grounds our democracy depends. It’s a sobering thought.