The Financial Sector Adjustment Company (Finsac) débâcle represented a moment of great public distress during the 1990s, but had always remained an uncertain event, notably as to whether the Government or private financiers were to be blamed for the fallout.

For sure, there was no shortage of blame for the Government for the astronomically high interest rates that blew up many new and promising businesses — a good number of which were started by non-traditional players — necessitating the emergence of Finsac.

There were claims that the trauma attendant on the failing entities caused suicides and heart attacks, as many were said to have lost their entire life’s savings due to no fault of theirs.

For its part, the People’s National Party (PNP) Administration pointed the finger at individuals and companies who abandoned established financial dealings, spent wantonly, and then sought to blame Dr Omar Davies’ finance ministry for their woes.

The matter became a cause celebre for the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and when Mr Audley Shaw took over as minister of finance in 2007 he set about to have a commission of enquiry look into the débâcle.

Last week, Dr Davies wrote to this newspaper, drawing attention to a missive from the finance ministry saying that there would be no report from the Finsac Commission of Enquiry, after 15 years and millions of dollars spent.

Indeed, Dr Davies was scathing in his statement, describing that development as “a travesty” and knocking Minister Dr Nigel Clarke, who inherited the Finsac affair, for not providing an explanation of the areas of expenditure which accounted for the public funds.

In hindsight, a matter such as Finsac should not have become political fodder and should have been a teachable moment from which our fledgling financial sector could learn much that would no doubt serve us in the future.

Dr Davies seems to be still carrying feelings, having borne the brunt of the criticisms and allegations launched against him in the wake of Finsac’s creation. Perhaps, being human, that is not surprising — though this is far bigger than one man’s hurt.

Hitting back, he said: “Seldom before had the results of a commission of enquiry been so prejudged, with conclusions drawn as to where blame should be placed, even before the first sitting.

“The fact is that any objective assessment would have indicated serious flaws in the process, leading to the establishment of the commission, thus dooming the proceedings from the start. All pretence of objectivity was ignored…”

Dr Davies raised some questions, which need answers, not to soothe his pain, but to clear the air and provide clarity for the nation on a matter that had all but destroyed the confidence of many new players in the financial sector at the time.

For example, Dr Davies charged that several members of the JLP Administration had been found to have been bad debtors yet had made the establishment of the commission a political campaign commitment. Is this really true?

He also charged that for the initial sittings of the commission, Finsac was not permitted to engage legal representation, leading to “several unsubstantiated allegations of bias on the part of the management of the institution going unchallenged, but, nonetheless, given widespread publicity”.

Answers are sorely needed.