Without a doubt, the highlight of this week, nay, this month, was Joseph Muscat’s appearance before the public inquiry on Friday.

Muscat was braver than Konrad Mizzi and answered most questions put to him, although one might argue that this was necessary for him to defend his turf, rather than looking downright guilty by remaining silent like his former special projects minister and the Nexia BT duo.

Yet many of Muscat’s answers were hard to swallow, and some statements he made were downright contradictory.

Muscat said, for example, that there was no “government within a government,” no “kitchen Cabinet.” Yet at least two ministers had said that this was the case, and others publicly admitted that Keith Schembri held too much power. Some of them said that Cabinet was completely bypassed on major government projects (which turned out to be the most controversial ones), yet Muscat told the inquiry board that he always spoke to all Cabinet members.

The former PM also contradicted himself when he said he believes “hand on heart” that it was a mistake to ask former ministers Manuel Mallia and Michael Falzon to resign from ministers. Yet, on the other hand, he said it was a mistake not to sack Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi after the Panama Papers scandal and the subsequent fallout.

How can Muscat regard both his lack of action, and his action against erring ministers as a mistake?

Many have argued that the only time when Muscat showed some responsibility and leadership was when he took action against Mallia and Falzon, who were both embroiled in government scandals. Is he now regretting the little leadership he showed during his tenure?

The contradiction goes on further with Muscat’s glowing praise of Mizzi and Schembri, describing the men as “doers” and expressing the “good fortune” he had of “being surrounded by a group of people and a cabinet who put their lives on hold; such was their sense of service.”

The truth is that Muscat failed to shoulder political responsibility not only when he failed to fire Mizzi and Schembri, but also when he refused to step down after the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia.

In any democratic European country, the Prime Minister of a country where a journalist is assassinated would have stepped down. In Slovakia, for example, the entire Cabinet resigned within three weeks of the murder of investigative journalist Ján Kuciak.

But Muscat did not do this. Instead, he remained, despite the murder, and the despite the countless scandals that the murdered journalist had exposed.

“Stories develop piece by piece, and you don't know where it is going to end up,” he said on the Panama Papers.

“The information was a trickle, now whether it was an intended trickle or unforeseen is another matter... For me, if someone owns a complex offshore tax structure, I don't depart from the premise that he is a criminal,” he told the board.

In actual fact, the information about Mizzi and Schembri’s alleged wrongdoings was anything but a trickle. For weeks and months on end, the news was dominated by claims of corruption, of attempts to open bank accounts in shady jurisdictions, and by leaked FIAU reports that pointed towards possible money laundering by his two close colleagues.

There was more than enough reason to fire them on the spot …. even the Panama Papers revelations alone were enough to warrant a sacking.

“I don't believe that everyone mentioned in Panama Papers and Swissleaks had bad intentions,” he continued.

Really? Does Muscat still believe that Schembri and Mizzi’s intentions were pure? Even after their Panama companies were named as target clients for Yorgen Fenech’s 17 Black? Even after the latter company was linked to the Montenegro wind farm scandal?

Muscat also made the “shocking” claim that every government in the world has to be close to the business sector. While it is true that governments have to work hand in hand with the business sector, not every political party holds secret fourth floor meetings before an election – meetings so shady that even the former Labour Deputy Leader (now Speaker) Anglu Farrugia had denounced them.

Muscat’s PR team went into overdrive on Friday, uploading several comments on his media page in what was described a as a social media blitz. It is a pity that Muscat and his team are not so accommodating with media houses, including this one, which have been hounding him for an interview for well over a year.

While his PR team practically ran a live blog of the hearing on his Facebook page, repeating quotes that we have heard ad nauseam over the years, Muscat did not stop to speak to journalists on his way to the court building.

He did not answer, for example, a question by this newsroom on who paid for his 2014 Evian-les-bains Hilton stay. The answer to that question remains elusive, with both Muscat and Edward Zammit Lewis refusing to declare who footed the bill.