The way in which both the government and the Opposition handle the allegations that have arisen this week with respect to Economy, Investment and Small Business Minister Chris Cardona will, in part, affect their future political fortunes.

The government clearly has a hornets’ nest on its lap over serious allegations that the minister not only spends time in allegedly sleazy company at a Valletta bar, but that he also accepted the use of a pricey apartment from a well-known businessman free of charge – allegations that the minister absolutely denies, but more about that further down.

The Opposition, however, appears to be barking up the wrong tree when it attempts to link the use of the apartment to the government’s agreement with ElectroGas simply because his landlord’s family is one of the main shareholders in the consortium building the new Delimara power station.

While there is plenty to criticise vis-à-vis the Cardona conundrum that exploded this week, this particular angle to the story was a case of opportunism at its best. That is because the Nationalist Party itself has said time and time again that the power station deal had been struck with the Labour Party before its election to government in March 2013. This was a case of putting the cart way ahead of the horse.

By way of background, Silvan Fenech – the person who lent or leased depending on which version one subscribes to – is the son of Ninu Fenech, brother of the late George and Ray Fenech, both of whom were well known to have been close to former PN leaders Eddie Fenech Adami and Lawrence Gonzi. The other shareholder in the Maltese element of Electrogas is Joe Gasan, another PN stalwart.

Back to today’s Opposition, perhaps while it is busy shooting itself in the foot, the Nationalist Party could take the opportunity to come clean and inform the country if the Tumas Group ever donated to the party, or if it ever gave the party the use of any of its venues free of charge to hold its activities. 

Strangely, former finance minister Tonio Fenech had been hauled over the hot coals by the Labour Party in opposition when he travelled with members of the Fenech and Gasan families to England for a football match. This is clearly a case of two weights and two measures.

But having said that, the accusations the economy minister is facing are serious, very serious indeed. They were first raised by our columnist Daphne Caruana Galizia last Sunday on her blog, and matters quickly picked up steam in Parliament, with Deputy Leader of the Opposition Beppe Fenech Adami being quick to demand answers.

The accusation was that the minister for one reason or another, reasons that do not merit going into here, found himself in a position in which he needed alternative lodging. The allegation is that he turned to his friend Silvan Fenech for help, who obliged by lending him a flat next to his own at Portomaso, a luxury residential complex owned by the Fenechs, free of charge.

In Parliament, the minister was pressed on the issue and sometime later, at around 10pm, he published a rental contract, about which the Opposition asked some very serious questions that have yet to be answered by the government or the minister himself.

We have to agree that the contract published by the minister is more than a little strange in a number of respects.  For one, it contains a curious clause that rent for the 10-month lease, at €1,400 a month, only has to be paid five days before the end of the lease in October 2015.

The accusation is that a bogus contract had been quickly drawn up after the parliamentary session and the payment deadline was concocted so as to avoid having to supply proof of payment, at least for the time being.

Although this was a contract between friends, the clause is still unorthodox, as confirmed by legal professionals who have spoken out on the issue. Moreover, rent is usually paid a month in advance or at the very least one month in arrears. 

Another outstanding curiosity is the fact that the contract mentions a letting agency when there clearly was none involved.

But what is even more suspect is the fact that the minister published the contract some four hours after the accusations that he was living rent-free by the good grace of a businessperson arose in Parliament – even though in Parliament the minister made no mention of paying rent for the apartment or the existence of a rental contract.

Indeed, the Opposition has a point when it called on the minister to hold a press conference to answer to all this.  So far, no such thing has been done.

The pure fact of the matter is that even if the minister is paying the rent he says he is paying on the apartment, the terms of the contract published – in particular the facility to pay 10 months’ rent at the end of the lease – are very beneficial terms indeed.

There is, after all, little ethical difference between a minister living rent-free in an apartment owned by a businessman and paying rent to that businessman under special, beneficial conditions. This should not be acceptable under any circumstances at all.

For even if the use of the apartment is being paid for, this is still a favour and a person in the minister’s position simply cannot or, rather, should not be able to afford the damage to his reputation and the government of which he forms part. 

He really should explain without further delay. 

One thing is, however, for certain: come October the press will be hounding the minister to publish details of the €14,000 payment he has made in a lump sum, 10 months in arrears.