A judge with an impeccable career in justice, who served on the European Court of Human Rights, served as Chief Justice for eight years at a time when the judiciary was emerging from a scandal that had rocked its foundations, and who has long been regarded as a man of integrity and principle?

Or Joseph Muscat, who in 2019 was named by the Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project's as Person of the Year in Organised Crime and Corruption; who now faces criminal charges arising from the hospitals concession, charges to which he has pleaded not guilty; who was Prime Minister when Daphne Caruana Galizia was murdered, with a public inquiry later declaring that the State had failed her; and whose years in government were followed by Malta's placement on the FATF grey list in June 2021 - a development rooted in deficiencies in Malta's anti-money-laundering and financial crime framework?

That is the question that inevitably arises from the extraordinary disagreement which unfolded over the weekend over Vincent De Gaetano's withdrawal from consideration to chair the public inquiry into Daphne Caruana Galizia's assassination.

De Gaetano says he initially accepted the proposal in principle. He says that after discussions about the terms of reference, he began receiving repeated suggestions about how the inquiry should operate: how questions should be asked, who should ask them and even how reports should be prepared.

His concern was fundamental. If the terms of reference said the inquiry board would regulate its own procedure, why was the government continuing to suggest how that procedure should work?

De Gaetano says he repeatedly made that point to then Justice Minister Owen Bonnici. Eventually, he says, he became frustrated by what he regarded as persistent attempts to interfere and concluded that he risked being dragged into "constant skirmishes" and being used.

This is not the account of a political opponent. It is the account of a former Chief Justice who went on to serve nine years as Malta's judge at the European Court of Human Rights.

Muscat's response is that the communications were all in writing, were made before De Gaetano had been formally appointed, and concerned logistical matters. His argument is essentially that nobody attempting to interfere with an inquiry would do so in writing.

The eventual public inquiry, chaired by retired judge Michael Mallia, concluded in 2021 that the State bore responsibility for Daphne's assassination because it had created a culture of impunity originating at the highest levels of government and spreading into institutions including the police and regulatory bodies.

Muscat is entitled to give his version. He is entitled to dispute De Gaetano's recollection. But the credibility of the two accounts cannot be considered in isolation from the people, institutions and history involved.

On one side stands a former Chief Justice and European human rights judge describing why he walked away from an assignment of immense national importance.

On the other stands the former prime minister whose government was at the centre of the political environment examined by that inquiry, and whose record remains the subject of serious controversy and ongoing legal proceedings.

So, once again, the question is unavoidable:

Who do you believe?