There is no doubt whatsoever that Home Affairs Minister Manuel Mallia has found himself in a very tight corner indeed following this week's utterly reprehensible actions of one of his drivers, the actions of which require little elaboration here, but whether he should resign or not is another question altogether.

Granted, if ministers were to resign because of the infractions of those in their employ, the Cabinet of Ministers would be as perpetually bare as Old Mother Hubbard's cupboard.

As such, when considering the multiple calls for the minister's resignation one clearly needs to delineate the arguments.  Should the minister resign over the actions of his driver, who was off duty at the time but still in possession of the ministerial car when the minister was miles from the scene of the crime(s)?  No, we do not believe so.

But the question of whether the minister should resign for the way in which the story of the incident was handled in its immediate aftermath, or spun in an alleged cover up for the driver's wayward actions according to the Opposition, is another story altogether. The Opposition is demanding the minister's head on a plate for the incorrect information disseminated to the media last Wednesday right after the incident - the email from the Department of Information came in at just before 11.15pm - that labelled the incident as a hit and run. That clearly appears to have been a false statement fed to the Department. The second fallacy reported by the statement was the shots fired by the driver were mere "warning shots", which also turned out to be false as photographs of the car clearly showed two bullet holes in the back of the car he had been chasing.

According to the Prime Minister, that statement had been issued so hastily "in order not to appear to be hiding anything", which remains to be seen through a second board of inquiry comprising three former members if the judiciary that was announced yesterday evening.

The magisterial inquiry into the shooting incident involving the driver will establish all the facts related to the incident itself beyond reasonable doubt, and the driver will hopefully face the full brunt of the law for his highly questionable and condemnable behaviour and actions.

But it is not the actions of the wayward police officer that are being called into question. What is highly questionable is the Department of Information's alleged attempt to whitewash the situation from the outset. Just to be clear, the facts relayed in that completely erroneous statement could not have come from the Department of Information itself; such statements come from the ministry and are merely relayed by the Department of Information.

Moreover, while the magisterial inquiry into the actual events of last Wednesday night are more than welcome, what is even more welcome was yesterday's decision by the Prime Minister to establish another parallel board of inquiry into the aftermath of the event, to determine whether there had, in fact, been an attempted cover up on the part of the minister or the ministry.

The Prime Minister tossed the ball squarely into the Opposition leader's court by offering him the opportunity to select the former member of the judiciary to lead this inquiry, a proposition the Opposition leader has declined - obviously wise to the fact that if he were to become involved in this way he would have no choice but to endorse the inquiry's findings come what may. The Opposition leader has until 6 this evening to give his reply, but anyone hoping he will snap at that particular bait should not hold his breath.

If the board of inquiry finds that there had been manipulation on the part of the minister or ministry, there will be no other avenue open to the Prime Minister but to order the minister to clear his desk.

This issue has put the current government's pledge of accountability and transparency - in many ways the hallmark of its last election campaign - to the harshest test so far in this legislature, tests that have been failed continuously time and time again so far in this government's tenure. 

The board will have 15 days to carry out its work, and by having set such a deadline it would appear that the government will allow this particular inquiry to actually see the light of day, unlike the many others that have been pending for too long a time now.

The other fact remains that the trigger-happy police officer made ministerial chauffeur, who had committed several serious crimes, has so far not been charged with any offence today, four days since their commission. On the other hand, the British national - who was threatened by a man in plain clothes, chased in hot pursuit and shot at - spent a day and a half in police custody for apparently merely hitting the ministerial car's side mirror with his own vehicle, which is now peppered with bullet holes as a result of the altercation.

If the government and/or the police force were truly serious, the book would have already been thrown at the errant police officer and he would at present be facing the full brunt of the law for the number of illegalities committed, not least of which was the discharge of a firearm in a public place and possibly another charge of attempted murder.  A mere suspension from his driving duties and, later, from the police force simply does not cut it.

The way in which the government deals with the results of this second board of inquiry and the action that will be taken against the police officer/ministerial chauffeur will be the ultimate litmus test of this administration.