At first blush it may seem paradoxical but it is undeniable.

The testimony of protected (for purposes of public interest) witnesses in the parliamentary probe of ex-alternate justice minister Dimitris Papangelopoulos’ alleged judicial tampering in the Novartis investigation shed light on the apparent ulterior motives in one of the darkest affairs since the fall of the junta in 1974, precisely because it was vague.

The testimony to some extent helped elucidate why the judiciary offered the status of protected witness with immunity from prosecution to individuals who could offer only hearsay and conjecture.

Who offered these individuals so much in order to receive so little –mere rumour – and on whose orders?

One must note that the parliamentary inquiry (the committee wields the power of an investigating magistrate including the right to issue subpoenas) is not probing the corruption of politicians.

It is investigating whether a government official abused his power for reasons unrelated to the putative scandal.

The scope of the probe is well-defined. Its objective is to determine whether there is a real corruption scandal or whether what was touted by Papangelopoulos as the greatest scandal since the establishment of the Greek state is in fact an unprecedented conspiracy.

The hour of truth appears to be drawing near and it must be followed by the time for explanations and repercussions.