Did Transparency International (TI) carry out due diligence before appointing the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation as its national contact point?

According to the Malta Today (21st January 2021) the foundation set up by
the family of murdered journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia will be the national
contact point for Transparency International (TI).

Did (TI) conduct due diligence on the Daphne Caruana Galizia Foundation?
I don’t think so. But is due diligence necessary in this case? In my
opinion and that of others, the Daphne Caruana Galizia brand still needs
to come out completely clean. First of all, there is Helena Dalli’s
statement that Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder was a femicide. Secondly,
is Daphne Caruana Galizia a brand of clean politics? Was Daphne Caruana
Galizia free of bad politics?

A key aspect of corruption is the use of power by government officials or
their network contacts for illegitimate private gain (monetary, trading
in influence, etc). Was Daphne Caruana Galizia part of a network of
government officials whom she helped achieve their objectives, provided
that these government officials backed the same government she supported?

Therefore, in my opinion, TI should have asked the following questions
and obtained clear answers before proceeding to appoint the Daphne
Caruana Galizia Foundation as its representative in Malta.

1. To what extent was Mrs. Daphne Caruana Galizia involved in politics?
She is described as a journalist but was she involved in political
strategy seeking the election of a specific political party at the
expense of another?

2.  Was she the journalist who received the Panama List of Maltese legal
bodies from I.C.I.J. (with whom her son worked) who in turn had received
it from Bastian Obermayer, a reporter for the German newspaper
Süddeutsche Zeitung, who had his “war room” on the twenty-fourth floor
of the paper’s office tower, in Munich?

3. When did she receive the information? Was the list, forwarded to her,
made up of ‘a total of 714 companies linked to Malta… launched … by
the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists’ TOM May 9
2016.

4.  Did she use the list selectively and ‘inter alia’ in the interest
of one particular Political Party that she may have been providing a
service to?

5. Did she focus on only 3 of the companies in the list said to be of
over 700? It may have been right to focus on these 3 but did she analyze
the remaining names before putting them aside?

6. Besides being a journalist, was she also, in her personal capacity, a
service provider to Corporate and other Businesses?

7. Were any (one or more) of the 700 plus companies in the ‘Panama List’
that were put to one side (or their shareholders or executives) also her
business clients?

8. Were any (one or more) of these 700 plus companies who may have also
been her business clients involved in tendering for sizeable tenders
issued by Government that was formed by the Political Party that she may
have been offering a service to? To what extent did her influence in the
Political Party run deep? Did she use her influence within the Political
Party in any way to help her client/s, who may also have had a Panama
account, win a tender?

9. Did she use her journalism to demean potential competitors of her
clients who may have been involved in a tender process?

10. Did she use her journalism to demean individuals within the party she
served who did not fit into the grand scheme of things?

I believe that these are questions calling for an answer if the standing
of the Foundation is to be seen as being faultless.