CONCERNS have been raised that the efforts of the commission of enquiry into the financial sector meltdown of the mid-1990s, which resumed sittings on Wednesday, could be in vain.

The concerns stem from the fact that there is a pending appeal against the Supreme Court’s refusal on September 2 to disqualify current chairman Charles Ross from the panel of commissioners when it booted then chairman Justice Boyd Carey and attorney RNA Henriques.

When the applicants — among them former Finance Minister Dr Omar Davies — last month filed their appeals against the Supreme Court’s ruling, no stay was obtained to prevent the continuation of the sittings pending the outcome of the appeal process.

In light of this fact, at least two attorneys — one speaking on condition of anonymity because of his interest in the matter — have noted that millions of taxpayers dollars could be wasted if the appellate court rules that Ross should have been booted. Such a ruling would mean that the findings of the commission, which needs a quorum of two people, would be nullified.

“One would wonder if they should proceed any at all until the matter is ventilated in the Court of Appeal,” attorney Bert Samuels, who is a partner in the law firm Knight, Junor & Samuels, told the Observer on Wednesday. “If the court rules that he ought not to have [continue sitting], the outcome of the commission could not be valid from the beginning.”

Saying his piece, the attorney who spoke on condition of anonymity added, “There is a downside to going with the commission of enquiry even though legally they are entitled to do so.”

Since the commission commenced sittings at the Pegasus Hotel in New Kingston in September 2009, $50 million have been spent from the budgeted $80 million, the Public Administration and Appropriations Committee of Parliament was told on Wednesday. Of the sum spent, $22 million went to secretary Fernando dePeralto, $9 millionto the booted chairman Carey and close to $2 million each was paid out to Ross and his fellow-commissioner Worrick Bogle.

Contacted Wednesday, Queen’s Counsel Michael Hylton, who is representing Davies in the court matter, stopped just short of calling foolish the State’s decision to proceed with the enquiry while the appeal is pending.

“If the Government wants to continue with the commission while there is an appeal in the court, then that is up to them,” said Hylton.

The commission of enquiry is also probing how debtor to collapsed financial institutions were treated by the subsequent intervention of the Financial Sector Adjustment Company (Finsac).

Although a stay can still be obtained, Hylton said that his client would not be taking that avenue.

Neither have lawyers for the other appellants — ex-financial secretary Shirley Tyndall, former Finsac chairman Patrick Hylton and the Jamaica Redevelopment Foundation Inc — received instructions to apply for a stay of the proceedings, the Observer understands.

Both Carey, a former Court of Appeal judge and Henriques, who served as counsel for the commission of enquiry, were disqualified by the Judicial Review Court on ground of perceived bias because they were involved with failing financial institutions that were taken over by Finsac following the financial sector meltdown.

Henriques was disqualified even though he was not officially joined as a respondent in the case. He has appealed that ruling. Meanwhile, Ross’ disqualification is being sought because of public statements he made about Government polices which, he said, were responsible for the financial sector meltdown.

On Wednesday, Queen’s Counsel Allan Wood said Henriques’ had no interest in stopping the enquiry pending the outcome of his appeal. “His appeal has to do with the vindication of his name,” said Wood.