Commissions of enquiry usually become what is made of them by those who preside over their hearings and, in particular, their chairmen.

And you can usually judge the eventual outcome by the tone of the proceedings and the rules by which they operate, which are set by the commissioners. The current enquiry into the 1990s collapse of large swathes of Jamaica's financial sector and the performance of FINSAC, the agency used by the Government to lead the rehabilitation, is unlikely to be any different.

In that case, though, it was always going to be particularly difficult to get to the nub of the issues surrounding the 1990s crisis and the policy responses to it. The issues are too steeped in emotion and raw politics for a simple, straightforward review of events. Further, the job of commissioners is complicated by terms of reference that are wide-ranging and involved; sort of like throwing the entire contents of the kitchen sink, and more.

Non-partisan, even-handed management

So, for this enquiry to achieve much, or anything substantial, it will demand non-partisan, even-handed management and intellectual clarity on the part of the commissioners: the chairman, retired judge Boyd Carey; chartered accountant Worrick Bogle; and investment banker Charles Ross.

We warned of the potential pitfalls when the commission's terms of reference were announced in May, and repeat our concerns because of the danger signals that have emerged in the first few days of the public hearings, during which Dr Omar Davies, the former finance minister who presided over the 'FINSAC period', gave evidence.

It is perhaps worthy to note that during the second day of Dr Davies' testimony, several of the top leaders of the People's National Party (PNP) turned up, including its president and the Opposition leader, Portia Simpson Miller. So, too, did the party's chairman, Robert Pickersgill.

They, on the face of it, were giving moral support to Dr Davies. But another reading of their presence could indicate an emerging political roil which, perhaps unwittingly, has been contributed to by the manner in which the commissioners have decided to conduct the enquiry.

Most people are accustomed to commissions of enquiry being exceedingly structured, semi-judicial affairs, with witnesses questioned in a relatively formal setting, aimed at eliciting fact and opinion to help the commissioners arrive at their eventual conclusions. Some of those witnesses may have emotional tales.

Retributive justice

In this case, surprisingly, Dr Davies was not only questioned by the commissioners and lawyers about the judgements and policy prescriptions he applied, but by clients of banks who lost homes and businesses during the crisis. Some may conclude that this was not so much a test of policy, but more a display of raw emotion and an attempt at a kind of retributive justice when a convicted felon is forced to face his victim. The political types were allowed to get their whacks in too.

We expect that the commissioners, whatever the provocation or presumed insults to their intelligence, will coax out pertinent facts rather than appear to have arrived at a priori positions, including that policies may have been so badly framed as to 'kill off people'.

The commission still has time to recalibrate and even do a useful job. Right now its route is towards a political tit for tat.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.