The report by the European Union’s anti-fraud office Olaf, has been passed on to the Maltese Attorney General’s to see whether or not his alleged misdeeds warrant prosecution according to law on a local level.

Mr Dalli claims his innocence, yet the European Commission has pointed fingers at him and said that the report contains “unambiguous” circumstantial evidence that made his post “untenable”. Immediately, people made their judgment. Some said that Mr Dalli was a disgrace and others said that this was a case of passing judgment before the facts of the matter were known.

This newspaper, and our sister paper The Malta Independent on Sunday, have factually reported the matter. We have not passed judgment as the facts are not in our hands – no one has yet seen the Olaf report and the only thing to go on is the version of events put by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and Mr Dalli himself. The former said that report made Mr Dalli’s position untenable, while the latter says he did nothing wrong and seeks to clear his name.

We will point out, at this stage, that despite our reportage on the issue being based solely on what has been said by all parties, Mr Dalli went on record, accusing this newspaper and others of sharpening the knives and accosting him. Nothing is further from the truth. We have refrained from passing judgement, and this because it is the word of one man against another. And so, as our sister paper made the call in last Sunday’s edition, we unequivocally say that the Olaf report should be made public, sooner rather than later.

There are always three sides to every story. What one says, what the other says; and the truth. What we mean by this is that unless we see the investigation report, we will not pass judgment either way. We will not interfere with fact, nor will be interfere with the tit-for-tat that Mr Dalli has engaged in with the European Commission. Yet one cannot expect the matter to be ignored. Mr Dalli is a public figure and the fallout from the report has, whether one likes it or not, besmirched the reputation of Malta (and Mr Dalli). Whatever has gone on after his resignation has been in the public domain and we have a duty to report all that we can, from all angles – as we have done.

This medium, however, will not act as prosecution, judge and jury – no matter what Mr Dalli has gone on air saying. What we will do, however, is continue to push for the publication of this report. Does it merely hint that Mr Dalli could have been put himself in a position where he could have been approached to be influenced? Or does it actually say that Mr Dalli had been influenced. Does it say that Mr Dalli was the sole person who was circumstantially involved? Or does it say that Mr Dalli and others, perhaps even other members of the Commission were involved? Does the report allege criminal activity? Or does it say that there were merely inconclusive pieces of evidence that when linked together make circumstantial evidence? The only way that we can get answers is by the report being published. In the meantime, it is the reputation of the Maltese Commissioner, as the delegate of the Maltese people, that is being tarnished further, therefore we deserve to know. Failure to act will just result in more suspicion and more raised eyebrows in the hallowed halls of the EU institutions and on the streets of Europe at a time when integrity and transparency are being demanded more than ever before.