As this newsroom has editorialised over the last two weeks, justice must not only be done but it also must be seen to have been done.

That adage holds particularly true when it comes to the somewhat thorny case of whether a judicial inquiry should be launched into the possibility that money laundering laws were broken when Panamanian companies and New Zealand trusts were opened by the Prime Minister’s chief of staff and one of his key ministers, the gory details of which have emerged from the Panama Papers.

Roughly two weeks ago a magistrate agreed to the Opposition Leader’s request for such an inquiry to be launched, but that ruling had been appealed by the Prime Minister, himself a party to the case, his chief of staff and his tourism minister – plus four other alleged accomplices.

And despite the request for the appeal to have been heard with urgency, the judge appointed to rule on that appeal, Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi, gave it a fortnight, until yesterday, for the first hearing to be held.

In the meantime, calls from several quarters for the judge to recuse himself from the case have also seemingly fallen on deaf ears.  His recusal from the appeal case has been requested not upon grounds of competency, credentials or integrity.  His recusal has been requested because, as stated, at the end of the day justice must not only be done but it also must be seen to have been done.

And that is because, for those who may still be unaware of the fact, Mr Justice Antonio Mizzi happens to be married to Labour Party European Parliamentarian Marlene Mizzi, who has been vocal in support of those in government who have been outed by the Panama Papers, and equally vocal against those who have sought to bring those individuals to justice.

There are numerous other insinuations and innuendos that shall not be repeated out of respect for Mr Justice Mizzi’s untarnished reputation for integrity and jurisprudence but the judge would have to be as blind as the blindfolded Lady Justice herself to not see the writing on the wall.

To add to the troubles with the current appeal case - the complete lack of urgency for the judge to have it heard and his refusal to recuse himself from the case – was yesterday’s surprise move to have held the much-anticipated hearing behind closed doors.  Journalists and politicians, with the exception of Opposition Leader Simon Busuttil, who had lodged the request for an inquiry in the first place, were asked to leave the courtroom.

Now the judge has ordered Prime Minister Joseph Muscat, his Chief of Staff Keith Schembri and his Tourism Minister Konrad Mizzi to be present for the next hearing.  Will that also be held behind closed doors?

It is fully appreciated that it is the judge’s prerogative to set hearing dates, to decide whether there are sufficient reasons to recuse himself from a case and to hear cases behind closed doors, but these three consecutive decisions in a case that is in many ways the epitome of the national interest raise eyebrows.

That is because while there is no reason to call the judge’s motives or legal reasoning into question, there are many out there who are doing just that.  And while the judiciary is not beholden to public opinion in any way, shape or form, the public must not be made to suspect that yet another of the country’s institutions, arguably its most important one at that, is under threat.

Again, justice must be done and it must be seen to have been done, but indications so far are not giving the public much confidence.