In January, Abela had also publicly criticised the magistrate leading the inquiry, questioning the prolonged duration of the investigation and stating that he “wouldn’t be surprised if the inquiry were published between [January] and the election.”

There are only two plausible explanations for Abela’s assertions: either he was somehow kept informed about the investigation’s progress and could predict its completion with astonishing accuracy, or he had ulterior motives for his interest in this particular inquiry. I personally believe the latter is more likely. My gut tells me that Abela’s primary motives are to galvanise the Labour vote ahead of the upcoming elections and, as usual, to discredit the institutions exposing corruption within his administration. It seems Abela anticipated the inquiry’s conclusion now, perhaps even influencing the timing himself to allow him to adopt a victim stance.

I understand Abela’s frustration. Following in the footsteps of a predecessor who brought significant success to his party and who remains deeply cherished can be daunting. If the Labour Party’s saga were a romantic comedy, Abela would be the awkward new boyfriend of the leading lady, who realises she still pines for her charismatic ex.

Abela is not only less popular than Muscat but also lacks comparable electoral success. Muscat led Labour to five consecutive record-breaking electoral victories, whereas this will be Abela’s second election at the helm. His first solo contest, the 2022 general election, saw an increase in Labour’s share of the vote but also the lowest voter turnout in 60 years—a victory, yes, but perhaps not the resounding endorsement he had hoped for from Labour’s base.

Moreover, Muscat continues to exert influence within the party, to such an extent that Abela likely fears an internal rebellion orchestrated by his predecessor. Why else would he reintegrate many of Muscat’s allies and even welcome Muscat back to the party headquarters?

Abela likely feels immense pressure to achieve better than expected results. MEP and local council elections, occurring two years post-general election, are prime opportunities for protest votes and Abela knows this.

That Labour will win is hardly in doubt, but the extent of the victory and the number of seats Labour will secure in the European Parliament remain uncertain. Abela understands that this election is crucial not just for winning the hearts of the Labour electorate but also for safeguarding his position amid the instability Muscat’s presence creates.

Thus, rather than merely complaining about a magistrate potentially harming his party’s electoral performance, he is deliberately making her a target to maximise Labour turnout. There’s nothing like a compelling ‘us versus them’ narrative to rally the base and boost voter participation.

However, the reality remains that the elections are secondary to the inquiry. What will truly affect Malta’s future is not which representatives we send to Brussels for the next five years, but how we address the ramifications of the Vitals inquiry. That Labour will prevail again is almost a given; and in the absence of a strong and well-organised opposition capable of challenging Labour in a general election, reducing Labour’s lead will prove futile.

Prime Minister Abela’s outrageous yet nonsensical accusation that the magistrate is a political terrorist not only undermines the judiciary’s authority but also distracts from the essential issues at hand which and we deserve to not have politicised.

At this critical juncture, Malta stands at a crossroads that may allow it to finally close the chapter on the Muscat era. It is imperative that we do not let Robert Abela keep this chapter open.