Joseph Muscat says that he has paid his political price for all that happened under his watch. He believes that his resignation, which came soon after his right hand man Keith Schembri was arrested in connection with police investigations into the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, was enough.

What Muscat does not seem to realise is that his name will always be associated and linked with that of Schembri, and that everything that the former chief of staff is being faced with has a bearing on Muscat’s own reputation too. Given their relationship, the two cannot be separated.

Schembri, as is known, has been charged with corruption and money laundering. There are other police investigations taking place which could concern him. What he is now facing in the courts of law came to light a few years ago, at a time when he was still occupying a powerful post in the Office of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister at the time was Joseph Muscat.

Muscat always defended Schembri. And he did so to the hilt. When the Panama Papers scandal broke, Muscat was there as a shield for Schembri and then Minister Konrad Mizzi, both of whom had been caught having opened a company in Panama. As public outrage grew, so did Muscat’s defence of the two, even when other murky issues, now being investigated, were exposed by the media.

Schembri kept his place as chief of staff, with full access to the Cabinet of Ministers, and so did Mizzi. The latter was first simply relegated to a ministerial post without a portfolio but then, when Muscat won the 2017 election, was reappointed as a minister. This meant that Muscat had full confidence in both of them.

A third Panama company, going by the name of Egrant, was also under the spotlight. A magisterial inquiry found no evidence of a link to Muscat or members of his family. But it served as another reason to put Muscat in the same boat as that of Schembri and Mizzi. And the mystery of who really owns Egrant has not been solved. Maybe one day the people in the know will do the right thing.

Muscat is now choosing to remain silent. The Malta Independent two weeks ago sent him a series of questions to obtain a reaction from him following Schembri’s arraignment. Muscat did not reply. His right to silence is inalienable, but then everyone is free to interpret that silence. Many times it signifies a tacit admission of being in the wrong.

Muscat’s own defenders claim that the former Prime Minister and Labour Party leader did not know what was being concocted and that he was being misled by the people closest to him.

That Muscat retained Schembri (and Mizzi) must mean that he naively believed them when he (must have) confronted them about the accusations that were being levelled against them at the time. This must be classified as his worst error of judgment.

But it is not enough for Muscat to dismiss questions by the media by saying that he has paid his political price. Muscat still has a lot to answer for.