Chris Said’s resignation from the post of parliamentary secretary in the Office of the Prime Minister came like a bolt out of the blue on Thursday afternoon, breaking the calm of what had, up to then, been a relatively uneventful week of news.

The young, energetic and hard-working lawyer from Nadur submitted his resignation after a Court of Appeal ordered the police to initiate criminal proceedings against him over accusations of perjury in a civil case instituted in the Gozo courts, in which he provided legal services to the mother of a newborn – not a case of money laundering or any other such unsavoury criminal activity, well before Dr Said was appointed parliamentary secretary.

The case does not involve Dr Said’s role as a Cabinet member, but as soon as he was informed about the decision taken by Mr Justice Michael Mallia, as he tells today’s issue, he came straight to Malta to submit his resignation so that he would not be “a burden to the government” and he could fight his case with no strings attached. The decision was immediately accepted by the Prime Minister, and rightly so.

We will not go into the merits of the case, although there are many. That is for the police to prosecute and for Dr Said to defend himself.

There are, however, some issues that need to be raised.

The first is that Dr Said had no other option, in terms of accountability and responsibility, but to tender his resignation. As a public official, entrusted with hefty responsibilities, he simply had no other choice after being accused of a criminal offence. Although the issue was in no way connected to his governmental office, an accusation of perjury is a serious matter, as Dr Said himself has acknowledged.

The resignation was fully expected of him in the light of the charge that has been levelled against him, as it would be for any other public official. If he had not resigned voluntarily, he would have been either forced to resign or the Prime Minister would have been forced to remove him. As it happened, Dr Said did the correct thing himself.

The second point deals with the way in which the Prime Minister replied to Dr Said’s letter of resignation. He should have been more careful in his choice of words. He should have limited himself to accepting the resignation and informing Dr Said that his position would be reviewed once the court procedures come to an end.

By keeping the position vacant, and by saying that he would reinstate him in the same role once the court procedures are over, Dr Gonzi was indicating that the case would be resolved in Dr Said’s favour. As such, and this is also the interpretation given by Opposition Leader Joseph Muscat, Dr Gonzi is putting pressure on the judiciary. Dr Gonzi should have refrained from being so explicit in his letter of reply. His words could be interpreted as being an attempt to influence the outcome.

What effect will this case have on Dr Said’s political career?

There are two trains of thought. The predominant one is that, if Dr Said is absolved of the charge, he will emerge stronger than ever. He will be seen as the politician who had the courage to resign, that he had little other option – politically, ethically or morally – will be forgotten, in the face of the charge.

He will be seen as a politician who overcame an injustice. People tend to congregate around those they consider to have been victimised. Just take the Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando case before the last election. He was made out to be a victim of a conspiracy by the Labour Party. He cried and cried foul in public, and he was elected in not one but in two districts.

The other side of the coin is that mud has a curious habit of sticking. Even if he is absolved, his reputation will undoubtedly be tarnished in the minds of many and, we might add, incorrectly so, should he be found to be innocent.

Going by Dr Said’s explanation, he appears to have acted correctly during his testimony; his mistake appears to have been that he was not sufficiently prepared to take the witness stand.

As he explains in today’s issue, “With hindsight, I should have asked for the file when testifying that day. When questioned, I could have very easily have just said that I don’t remember. That would have been the easy way out, something that I have seen time and time again in the courts. But I am not that kind of person, I was simply trying to be as truthful as possible and to give the court all the details that I could on the case… from memory.”

If he is found guilty, that would, most likely, be the end of his political career. But even if guilty, one must ask, and this will need to be better ascertained in the wake of the case, would the charge and the circumstances leading up to it really warrant the permanent resignation of a Cabinet member?

Time and a proper post mortem on the perjury case will tell.