The special parliamentary session held two days after the acquittal of Yorgen Fenech was never going to be an ordinary political debate. The murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia, the subsequent investigations, and the revelations made during the trial have left a wound that no verdict could possibly close.

The contributions by Nationalist Party MPs reflected something much broader than the position of a political party. They gave voice to what many people of goodwill, regardless of their political allegiance, are thinking and asking.

Who ultimately ordered and paid for Daphne's murder? Why did the State allow a culture of impunity to develop? Why have so many of the recommendations of the public inquiry still not been fully implemented? And, perhaps most importantly, why do our institutions continue to struggle to convince people that justice is being pursued independently and without political interference?

The public inquiry itself established that the State had created the conditions in which impunity could flourish, including at the highest levels of government. That finding did not disappear with the jury's verdict. Neither did the recommendations that followed.

The PN speakers were right to bring these matters back to the centre of the parliamentary debate. Their criticism of the government was not simply about what happened nine years ago. It was about what has happened since, and about what remains to be done.

The government's response, particularly any attempt to speak at length about its past achievements, was largely beside the point.

The PN speakers highlighted precisely the weaknesses that have been afflicting the country since 2013: the role and independence of the institutions, the conduct of investigations, the handling of evidence and information, the relationship between politicians and people under investigation, the failure to act on recommendations and the continuing questions surrounding people whose names emerged during the proceedings.

Whether one agrees with every accusation made by the Opposition is almost secondary. What matters is that these questions exist and that they deserve answers.

Parliament is the highest institution in the country. When serious concerns about the functioning of the State are raised there, they should be taken seriously because the credibility of every institution depends on public confidence.

The acquittal must be respected. But respecting a verdict does not mean declaring the wider case closed. Nor does it mean that everything that emerged during the trial should be forgotten.

Indeed, the opposite should be true.

The trial has generated new questions that the competent authorities must examine. If there are credible indications of wrongdoing, they must be investigated. If there were failures by institutions, those responsible must be held accountable. If laws are needed to strengthen the fight against organised crime, unexplained wealth, abuse of power or threats to journalists, Parliament should act.

This is where the government should concentrate its energy.

The PN speakers' insistence on the implementation of the public inquiry's recommendations was therefore justified. The country needs institutions capable of demonstrating that nobody is above the law.

That is ultimately what people of goodwill want.

They want justice, not revenge. They want truth, not political theatre. They want institutions that work, rather than institutions that are defended simply because they exist.

The parliamentary debate should not end with this session. If anything, it should mark the beginning of a renewed effort to address everything that remains unresolved.

Because Daphne's murder was not only an attack on one person. It was an attack on the principles that allow a democratic society to function.

And until the State confronts the failures that made that attack possible, Malta cannot honestly say that it has learned the lesson.