Analysis: Opponents might be cowed, but they haven't gone away. A decision to curtail its work or to conduct it in private would cause rejoicing among those who wish to avoid public scrutiny, writes Paul Cullen
As Mr Justice Feargus Flood departs on his well-earned if unexpected retirement, the tribunal he leaves behind is faced with one of the greatest crises of its six-year history.
But the tribunal based in Dublin Castle has known lower moments that this, times when it was surrounded by enemies and had no achievements to its credit.
Today, however, the tribunal can point to last year's interim report as evidence of its popular and critical success. Unlike previous tribunals, it has demonstrated its willingness to grapple with corruption and call a spade a spade.
Yet there is no escaping the fact that the tribunal has structural problems that may prove insuperable. Since its remit was expanded in 1998, it has been used as a vessel into which all manner of allegation has been poured.
One of the reasons the tribunal is taking so long is because it has so many allegations of planning corruption to deal with. A second reason however is the inadequacy of legal procedures to investigate these matters expeditiously.
The lawyers may have shed their wigs when crossing from the courts to the tribunals, but other habits remain. Short sitting days and long legal holidays don't help, but a bigger problem is the absolute reliance on evidence from the witness box, usually given at length in the presence of large numbers of expensive legal teams.
Journalists covering the tribunal have long since learned to take the tribunal's estimates of time with a pinch of salt. So when the tribunal now says it expects to complete most of its investigations by 2006, we know that it's more likely to take twice that time.
Another problem facing the three judges of the tribunal is that they are virtually unknowns. In a status-conscious profession, the trio may suffer from the fact that they are Circuit Court judges, whereas Mr Justice Flood came from the High Court.
Further, the three left legal practice for the Bench only last year as part of a deal under which they agreed to serve on the tribunal.
However, Mr Justice Flood's successor, Judge Alan Mahon, has proved an impressive addition to the tribunal so far. His questioning of witnesses in the current module has been thoughtful and incisive and thankfully economic. There is no reason why the tribunal cannot resume hearings into allegations of political corruption regarding land at Carrickmines shortly, as Judge Mahon and his two colleagues have been present for all this evidence.
The only possible delaying factor is the requirement for the Oireachtas to pass legislation appointing Judge Mahon as chairman and making Judge Gerald Keys a full member instead of a reserve.
However, by the time this happens, the end of the legal term may be near, so it could be autumn before things get going again.
In this vacuum, we are left to wonder why Mr Justice Flood decided to bow out so suddenly. It plainly isn't his health; although he was indisposed for a time last month, he told the Attorney General in a letter last week that he was in "perfectly good health".
The costs issue must be a factor but if so, why was he happy to hear this matter only two months ago?
In his letter to the Attorney General, Mr Justice Flood refers to the "onerous, complex and time-consuming" nature of dealing with the costs issue.
Why, then, did the tribunal plan to dispose of the issue in May in just two weeks before abruptly changing its mind?
As part of its determination on costs, the tribunal asked those who obstructed its work to say why they should have their fees paid.
Many of these submissions were brutally frank, it is understood, and made direct and personal allegations about the work of the tribunal and the manner in which it treated witnesses.
Rebutting these claims properly would have taken time, far more time than Mr Justice Flood originally proposed to devote to the matter.
Many of those damned in last year's report have deep pockets, so money would be no object to further litigation.
It is easy now to forget the poisonous atmosphere into which the tribunal was born. Many wished for the premature death of this inquiry and used leaks and whispering campaigns to try and scupper it.
Others ran to the High Court repeatedly, seeking to overturn Mr Justice Flood's decisions.
The tribunal's opponents might be cowed of late, but they haven't gone away. A decision to curtail its work, or to conduct it in private would cause rejoicing among those who wish to avoid public scrutiny of their actions and their financial interests.
There are good reasons, therefore, for demanding that it get on with its work. But there are equally good reasons - just look at the obscene bills submitted by many parties - for demanding that it be reformed.