Civil servants usually dread the prospect of having to give evidence in a legislative council investigation. So, when a former senior official expresses a desire to be called before such an inquiry so he can make certain information public, questions must be asked. Former chief information officer Jeremy Godfrey wants to speak freely about the controversial circumstances in which he left his job in February, two months before his contract was due to expire. But he is bound by confidentiality rules which the government has not waived. He has taken the unusual step of suggesting that lawmakers might want to use their special powers to inquire into the matter - enabling him to tell his story with the legal protection that would provide.

His departure came amid doubts as to why the government had apparently departed from standard practice when picking two bodies, one of which is a recently formed government-friendly IT group, to jointly launch a HK$200 million internet learning programme. The lack of transparency about what really went on has raised concerns. They must now be dispelled.

It is right for Legco to use its powers to uncover the truth when the public is not in a position to do so. But this should be done only when really necessary. The government has refused to allow Godfrey to speak freely, giving rise to a perception that it may have something to hide. There are good reasons why confidentiality rules exist, but they should not be rigidly enforced when a lack of information is fuelling public concerns. It is also in the government's interests to explain what happened. The last thing it needs is a Legco inquiry. It would be much better for it to waive the confidentiality rules so that Godfrey can make his position known.