Independence Day is naturally a celebration of Malta's freedom to govern itself.

Yet there was a striking irony in Archbishop Charles Scicluna using the occasion to speak about another form of independence: that of the institutions entrusted with protecting the country and its citizens.

His message at yesterday's Independence Day mass went beyond the usual reflections on sovereignty and national identity.

Scicluna described independence as "not only an achievement of the past, but a responsibility entrusted to every generation."

Later in his homily, he turned to the institutions on which a free and democratic society depends, warning of the danger posed when informal networks become more powerful than those institutions.

More than six decades after gaining independence as a country, we continue to hear warnings about the need to safeguard the independence and integrity of the very institutions through which that freedom is protected.

That warning is particularly relevant now.

The Archbishop spoke of allegations of corruption and networks involving money, influence, favours and protection, warning that when informal networks become more powerful than institutions, the issue becomes more than individual wrongdoing.

It begins to threaten the integrity of the nation itself.

Those are serious words, but the underlying concern has become increasingly familiar in Malta.

Public debate repeatedly returns to the independence and integrity of institutions, whether the subject is planning, policing, prosecutions, public appointments or justice. On a day celebrating national independence, it should give us pause that institutional independence remains such a persistent concern.

Scicluna's reference to the recent court proceedings concerning the murder of Daphne Caruana Galizia made that point more immediate.

He spoke of the "deep wounds" that remain, particularly for a family which, nine years after her assassination, is still seeking full justice.

A jury has delivered its verdict in the recent trial, and that verdict must be respected. However, it does not erase the wider questions which have surrounded this case for years, nor does it remove the responsibility of the State to ensure that every institution involved commands public confidence.

The Archbishop's words therefore deserve attention beyond the context of a homily.

Independence cannot only mean freedom from external rule. A country cannot congratulate itself on being independent while allowing doubts to persist over whether its institutions are sufficiently insulated from money, personal connections, political interests or other forms of influence.

Scicluna was also careful not to exempt the Church from the standards he demanded elsewhere.

He said the Church must apply the same principles of transparency, foresight and accountability to itself, particularly when protecting vulnerable people.

Calls for institutional integrity carry greater weight when those making them accept scrutiny of their own institutions too.

His broader argument about development followed a similar principle. Malta has pursued economic and population growth, but Scicluna asked whether the country has properly calculated what its infrastructure, environment and communities can sustain.

Progress without sufficient foresight eventually creates a cost somebody must bear.

The same applies to institutions. Their independence cannot be repaired only after public trust has been lost. It must be protected before pressure, influence and informal networks are allowed to weaken it.

Independence Day should therefore be more than a commemoration of freedom achieved decades ago.

It should also prompt an honest examination of how that freedom is protected today.

National independence means little if the institutions through which democracy functions cannot themselves act with independence, integrity and without fear or favour.