Come tomorrow’s scheduled 13-hour debate on the Opposition’s motion of no confidence in the government, there will certainly be a lot of questions asked. The vast majority of those questions, it is presumed, will centre on the conduct or, rather, the misconduct of the government’s energy and health minister and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff.

That these two individuals opened companies in Panama with complementary trusts in New Zealand while in office, two of the highest offices in the land at that, are actions that would warrant immediate resignation in just about any modern, Western democracy.

We say ‘just about’ because it appears that it is only the government, its functionaries, acolytes and apologists who appear to be oblivious to the fact that good governance requires heads to roll even if there were no crime committed.

That is because, through these highly questionable actions, they are both either guilty of pure foolishness, crass disregard for their station or of things far more sinister in nature. 

Moreover, the flawed judgement applied when choosing to set up such dubious financial structures while in office brings into serious question their judgement on all other matters – from contractual negotiations to the basic running of the country.

But it appears that there is much more to the story and those details are slowly emerging as the full extent of the Panama Papers leaks surface.

This newspaper has recently published two articles based on fact and publicly-available information, articles that the government has failed to reply to in any acceptable fashion.

The first showed how the energy minister had set up his Panama-New Zealand financial structure on the very same day that one of the new power station’s partners, Gasol, sold its shares in the consortium for an undisclosed, multi-million euro sum – a rather strange coincidence that begs further explanation. It then transpired that the OPM’s chief of staff had a parallel set-up established in the exact same time frame.

The second article detailed how it was international law firm Mossack Fonseca, which is at the epicentre of the global Panama Papers scandal, that handled the energy minister and the chief of staff’s international financial set-up, plus the mother company and controlling interest of Gasol.

In today’s issue, this newspaper highlights several serious conflicts of interest surrounding these wheelings and dealings.

At this stage, it is clear that any government that is innocent of any wrongdoing would come forward and offer concrete explanations for this kind of conduct, and for the sake of the country it is hoped that these explanations will be supplied in the course of the parliamentary events scheduled for tomorrow.

The machinations at play here during the power station contract’s lifecycle to date are complex, but there are some basic questions that need to be answered, and answered immediately after what this newspaper has revealed. 

And in the light of the new facts, the Prime Minister must explain publicly and without delay:

·                   Why his government negotiated an 18-year power and gas purchase agreement worth billions of euros in turnover with a consortium that: (i) included giants Socar and Siemens which are both known for their past involvement in ethically questionable practices; and (ii) whose lead developer was Gasol, a tiny company without a credible track record ultimately controlled by a brass-plate company registered at Mossack Fonseca’s offices in the secretive jurisdiction of the Seychelles.

·                   Why those acting for his energy minister and chief of staff registered Panamanian companies with Mossack Fonseca in Panama at the same time as the 18-year gas and power agreement bidding process entered the short-listing phase, which included the consortium led by Gasol, a company ultimately controlled from a Mossack Fonseca address.

·                   What due diligence his government carried out on the Seychelles-controlled Gasol, particularly about the full identification of its beneficial owners in order to rule out that they do not include, directly or through other shell companies: politicians, corrupt persons, money launderers, dictators, human rights violators, criminals, persons barred from public office, co-tenderers or collusive tenderers. This due diligence should be published forthwith.

·                   Who were the beneficial owners (names and identities) of Gasol in the Seychelles while they had an interest in the 18-year power and gas agreement, their competencies and past achievements in power and gas projects and their global political and business connections?

·                   Who were the individuals representing the Seychelles-controlled Gasol at the negotiations table with his government and where are they now.

·                   Why Gasol, which was listed on the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market, cancelled its listing soon after the consortium was awarded the 18-year contract, precisely at the time when Gasol should have sought to use its listing for the market financing of its share in the project, and instead, eventually, the project ended up being financed mostly on the basis of a €360 million guarantee by the Maltese taxpayer.

·                   What was the exact role of Gasol in the consortium and in the project, considering that it exited the project as soon as the deal and its financing were fixed, and very specifically in the same week in July 2015 in which the financing package was finalised and signed – including the bank loan to the consortium of €450 million and the taxpayers’ guarantee to the banks of €360 million. 

·                   What liquidation Gasol pocketed for the disposal of its 30 per cent share upon exit from the taxpayer-guaranteed project on 22 July 2015, and the basis on which that liquidation was computed.

·                   Who were the shareholders holding an interest of five per cent or more in the share capital of Gasol at the date of its exit from the taxpayer-guaranteed project?

·                   Why he simply dismissed as “hogwash” two important transactions which occurred on 22 July 2015 and which are traceable to entities that are ultimately controlled at registered offices of the same international legal network of Mossack Fonseca which faces accusations of aiding money laundering.

·                   What is stopping him from publishing all contracts related to the power and gas deal? Are there any other hidden major contracts involving taxpayer commitments that relate to the power and gas deal and which the public has not been told about?