I’m sure there is an unwritten code among politicians of the two divides so as not to trample on each other’s toes.

Not only that, even villian politicians have been glorified instead of vilified. We are, beyond doubt, a third rate banana republic.

Investigative Journalism 101. Let’s hope our so-called journalists read this blog to learn something about how to do their job.

1. Look up the date of incorporation of PADA Builders Ltd on the Malta Financial Services Authority web portal.

2. Order a copy of the couple’s marriage certificate from the Public Registry.

3. Compare the dates to see whether the company was incorporated before the marriage.

4. If the company was incorporated AFTER the marriage, then ask Mrs Dalli point blank whether she and her husband have separate estates and, if so, at what point the estates were separated, so as to see whether this was done before or after the incorporation of the company.

I’ll try and explain more carefully. It all depends on when that company was incorporated.

If it was incorporated before they married, then she has no claim on the ownership of his shares in the company.

But if it was incorporated after marriage, then at law, she has a joint ownership claim on the shares which are in his name.

Even if the community of acquest was dissolved after the company was incorporated, she still has a joint ownership claim on anything acquired before that.

I stand to be corrected, but didn’t Helena Dalli say that she didn’t own the farmhouse but her husband (‘s company) did?

The default position under the law is community of acquest/joint ownership of anything acquired during marriage except through inheritance. So unless a couple specifically rejects this by notarial deed at the point of marriage or at any time thereafter, husbands don’t own anything after marriage. Husbands and wives do.

Not quite. Using your argument, Giovanna Debono shouldn’t have resigned.

Too many ifs are rendering the argument speculative and having a claim does not mean managing it, rather it all means she has an overriding legal responsibility over the property to ensure the proper use thereof, a responsibility she can only refute if she proves that she has taken all necessary action to ensure that the law is adhered to.

Very true. Whichever way I look at this case, Helena Dalli is a greedy liar and is hiding something.