All cards on the table, please

Revelations that John Dalli flew to the Bahamas within days of a probe by Europe's anti-fraud agency, OLAF, do not bode well for the former EU commissioner's protestations of innocence.

At the same time, however, what has defined this entire investigation from the outset was a glaring lack of hard evidence to substantiate the very serious allegations being made with regard to Malta's commissioner.

This general approach was perhaps best encapsulated in OLAF chief Giovanni Kessler's memorable quote that the report which forced Dalli's resignation contained "circumstantial, unambiguous evidence" of guilt.

At a glance the statement contradicts itself - evidence cannot be both circumstantial and unambiguous - and this alone is not the level of seriousness one would justifiably expect from such a serious institution.

On closer scrutiny, however, it transpires that the report contained only very sketchy evidence against Dalli - to the extent that no criminal charges were levelled at him - leading Commission President Barroso to 'change' the official reason for Dalli's quick departure from the Commission last October. Suddenly it was no longer a question of criminal culpability - as had been alleged from the very beginning - but rather "political reasons", which appear to be somewhat arbitrary in nature.

From this perspective, the emergence of fresh but equally circumstantial evidence can be taken in different ways. A flight to the Bahamas, on its own, is undeniably suspicious, but it is not enough to confirm - as alleged by the International Herald Tribune - that Dalli intended to effect a transfer of around €100 million to a secret bank account, of which there has been no hard evidence to date.

But the fact remains that the Bahamas, like Switzerland, enjoys a reputation as a haven for precisely such undisclosed bank accounts and dubious transactions. This does not exactly help Dalli's ailing image in the eyes of an understandably skeptical world.

Meanwhile, as was the case with the original allegations, new facts have emerged to cast doubt on the earlier ones. It now appears that the flight to the Caribbean had been booked before Dalli was aware of the investigation. This in turn may be coincidental; but if true it puts paid to the idea that Dalli was trying to transfer money in the knowledge that the net of the OLAF investigations was closing in.

Moreover, Dalli has since offered power of attorney to a selected representative of the European Parliament, in order to investigate whether he does in fact have undeclared bank accounts in the Bahamas. This is an offer the European Parliament should seriously consider, as it could (and should) settle and matter once and for all.

Still, too many questions surrounding this controversy remain unanswered, and it is in Dalli's own interest to disclose everything in connection with this case. So far his public statements have been vague. He told the Herald Tribune that he was given voluntary advice on a philanthropic initiative with Africa as its target continent and that in the Bahamas he talked about "an innovative, cheap power generation that would be very useful to be used in the project".

At this point, however, claims of 'confidentiality' or 'professional secrecy' are simply not good enough. Dalli should bear in mind that the entire incident has also caused untold damage to Malta's reputation. The former commissioner therefore owes us a full, no-holds-barred explanation of every single detail that is in any way connected with this trip.

Besides, Dalli has to decide whose interest actually comes first: that of his country, which has been besmirched by serious allegations in the international press, or those of unnamed people in connection with a philanthropic project in Africa, who are quite frankly irrelevant in the bigger picture.

Clearly, common sense decrees that the former concern overrides all others. The confidentiality argument has absolutely no leg to stand on, and John Dalli has now been placed in a position from which there can only be one exit. If, as he insists, his Bahamas trip was completely innocent, it is incumbent upon him to substantiate this claim by providing all the necessary details.

But the episode also exposes further flaws in the original OLAF investigation. It is incongruous, for instance, that OLAF would be unaware of a flight to the Bahamas which allegedly took place immediately after the interrogation of the man at the heart of the bribery allegations - though it had been booked before, as was revealed yesterday.

Given the relevance this would have had to its own report, the impression one gets is that - as EPP representative Ingeborg Graessle suggested - the investigation itself was hurried, amateur in scope and ultimately botched.

One is therefore inclined to sympathise with the MEP, who paradoxically hails from the same political grouping as the Nationalist Party, when she observes that "it is imperative that the European Commission finally understands that this is about bringing more transparency into this case. This is only possible if it answers our questions on the Dalli case and its tobacco link..."