We are seeing unfold in the courts of law a very extraordinary case.

We are referring, of course, to the constitutional case filed by the Leader of the Opposition against the Attorney General.

Adrian Delia has taken the AG to court because he wants to be given a full copy of the Egrant inquiry report, just like the Prime Minister.

He is telling the AG that, as the holder of a very important constitutional role, he should also be given a copy of the report – that the AG’s refusal to do so was leading to political imbalance.

The Attorney General, in his capacity as lawyer to the government, is arguing that Delia should not be given the full report.

The extraordinary thing is that the Prime Minister, for whom the AG acts as official lawyer, is saying that he wants to make the full report public (even is some say that he is only saying this because he knows that this will not actually happen).

It is a very convoluted case because the PM is also an interested party in this case, having been included in a list of 23 witnesses summoned by Delia.

The AG himself is on that list. Peter Grech argued that he should not be called to testify in the case, arguing that the witnesses on the list were “irrelevant”, but one fails to understand how the AG’s own testimony can be considered as irrelevant when he is currently the one who is calling all the shots, and keeping not only the Opposition Leader but also the rest of the country from seeing what’s inside the 1,400-page report.

The court has now rejected the AG’s request and, in a very uncommon move Grech will have to testify.

True, the AG is not the only one who is advising against its publication. Several lawyers have warned the PM that publishing the full inquiry would be a very unwise thing to do – that it could set a dangerous precedent.

But then again this was no ordinary inquiry, and the Egrant saga was no ordinary case. This was a claim that has been described by the PM as the biggest lie in Maltese political history – a claim that led to country to an early election. It was a case that widened the political divide in this country so, yes, people need closure and the full report must come out.

While the conclusions were clear in that no evidence was found to support the claims that Joseph and Michelle Muscat owned Egrant, the real owner of the third Panamanian company has not been uncovered yet – and that information is found in the full report.

Adrian Delia this week labeled the Attorney General as “a threat to democracy.” These were harsh words indeed, but the truth of the matter is that these burning questions need to be answered once and for all. This information cannot be left under lock and key for eternity.

Adrian Delia argues that this case if about freedom of information and political discrimination. That much is true. But there is more to it. We support Delia’s case because we also want the entire report to be made public for everyone to see.

It would be pointless for us in the media, and for the public in general, if the report would be handed to Delia only to remain locked in his desk.