SPARE a thought this weekend for Michael Lowry. Sympathy has generally been in short supply since the Tipperary man resigned as minister for transport, energy and communications after revelations that Dunnes Stores had paid for his house extension.

Many would no doubt argue that that is exactly as it should be. But that story broke in November 1996, and since then - excluding a small gap between the McCracken and Moriarty tribunals - Lowry has been constantly under investigation by a tribunal of inquiry.

It wasn't supposed to be like that. Ten years ago this month, the McCracken tribunal was established to investigate Dunnes' payments to Lowry and Charlie Haughey. Within months, it had delivered a report that proved Haughey had got over Euro1m from Ben Dunne and lifted the lid on the infamous offshore Ansbacher accounts. Judge Brian McCracken became a household name, and single-handedly restored confidence in the tribunal process that had been so damaged by the farce of the long-running and wholly unsatisfactory beef tribunal.

When its successor, the Moriarty tribunal, was established the following September to pick up on the unfinished business that was outside the remit of McCracken, more of the same was expected.

Yet with the 10th anniversary of its inception fast approaching, the end, while maybe coming into sight, still seems to be some way off. The Moriarty tribunal finally published its first report - on payments to Haughey - in December, but many believe it will be the end of this year, and possibly 2008, before a second report on payments to Lowry is published. That is more than 11 years after Sam Smyth's story on the extension was published in the Irish Independent.

But it's not just about Michael Lowry or even Charlie Haughey. There is absolutely no mileage for politicians in criticising tribunals, which have become the great untouchables of Irish society.

But behind the scenes there is grumbling aplenty about their cost and their seemingly interminable duration. For years, the Moriarty tribunal was largely immune to such criticism - in comparison to the monolith that is Flood/Mahon, so hamstrung by ludicrously broad terms of reference, it was regarded as a model of efficiency and focus.

Not any longer. It took the Moriarty tribunal over nine years to produce the report on Haughey. The tribunal's decision to publish it at a time when the Dáil was not sitting, and the fact that the media had the report before the leaders of the opposition, did not endear the tribunal to members of the Oireachtas who had established it in the first place.

In recent weeks, the Moriarty tribunal has contacted the government with a view to obtaining another time extension for its inquiry, as the six-month extension it received the previous July - when it was supposed to have concluded - was about to run out.

Given the amount of work still to be done by the tribunal, it is difficult to know how to interpret the government's decision to grant it only a one-month extension, to be reviewed next month. It seems discussions are still ongoing between the two sides about securing a realistic time frame for its conclusion.

And not before time. It is, after all, almost three years since finance minister Charlie McCreevy delighted his cabinet colleagues by proposing a sharp cut in fees for senior counsel at tribunals from a daily rate of Euro2,500 to Euro900, yet lawyers at Moriarty and Mahon continue to earn the old, higher rates.

Lawyers' fees The government initially deferred the date for the introduction of the new fee schedule to November 2005 because of fears that barristers working on existing inquiries would quit rather than accept the change. This deadline and another one last July have come and gone without the introduction of the new lower fee structure for existing inquiries, with the exception of the now completed Barr tribunal.

It would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

The Moriarty tribunal has now cost Euro25m and the government has allocated it another Euro10m for 2007.

It would be unfair not to point out that many of the factors causing the tribunal to take so long are beyond the control of the Moriarty team. Numerous legal challenges to its work have caused serious delays. And there is no doubt that the tribunal would have been able to wind up its work years ago if it didn't also have to investigate the awarding of the second mobile phone licence to Denis O'Brien's Esat Digifone, which has been described by Judge Moriarty as a "tribunal within a tribunal". Most importantly - because, like all tribunals of inquiry, the Moriarty tribunal operates in public - the requirements of natural justice mean that every person involved has to have legal representation to ensure their rights are being protected. It is a cumbersome process that does not lend itself to quick outcomes.

"The system is the problem, not Moriarty, " one legal source insisted to the Sunday Tribune last week.

Equally, it would be churlish to deny the successes of the tribunal to date, not least its report on payments to Charlie Haughey.

But fairly or unfairly, there are those - and they go beyond the circles of Denis O'Brien or Dermot Desmond, who have both been sharply and publicly critical of Moriarty - who are privately questioning the tribunal's modus operandi. Hazel Lawlor (see above) is just the latest person to add her voice to the chorus of criticism.

Some of the complaints heard are no doubt commonplace in such highlyfraught circumstances. But there were some raised eyebrows in political and legal circles when, in the report on Haughey, Judge Moriarty said: "The conclusions in a report such as this are in no sense findings of either criminal or civil liability in law, and represent no more than what should be a reasoned and informed expression of opinion".

He said the tribunal would be too confined if it could express findings or conclusions only if "so convinced of them that no alternative view could be correct".

High Court challenge That of course is not unique to Moriarty. It is the very nature of tribunals - they are not courts of law - but with people's reputations at stake, it's hard not to see the point of those who say the threshold doesn't seem particularly high.

Although seemingly drawing to a close, the Moriarty tribunal is heading into arguably its most critical phase yet. Dermot Desmond, who was involved in the Esat Digifone consortium, is reported to be planning a High Court challenge in relation to the work done by Moriarty lawyer Jerry Healy in 1996 (before the tribunal was established) for the Persona consortium, which was a losing bidder for the second mobile phone licence.

There is no suggestion that Healy acted in any way improperly and this issue has emerged at the tribunal before, leading to some heated exchanges between the tribunal team and Denis O'Brien's lawyer, Eoin McGonigal. But recent media reports suggest Desmond will use the issue to mount a challenge.

The public hearings are also likely to involve the cross-examination by barristers acting on behalf of O'Brien, Norwegian telecoms company and former Digifone shareholder Telenor, and Department of Communications economist Peter Bacon.

Commissioned by the tribunal, Bacon made an assessment of the procedures that led to the awarding of the mobile licence. According to the tribunal's own correspondence, this "confirmed the tribunal's tentative view" that a report by a Danish management consultant retained by the government to provide expert assistance in the licence competition "may contain a number of seriously fundamental flaws". There have been suggestions in some quarters that this cross-examination could drag on for weeks.

The tribunal may also hold further hearings on the Doncaster Rovers stadium property deal, which involved Denis O'Brien. Both O'Brien and Michael Lowry have said Lowry was not involved.

Again, it's hard to imagine this issue being dealt with quickly.

No smoking gun The other problem for the tribunal is that, while it has investigated a series of very interesting financial transactions that may link O'Brien to Lowry, there is general agreement that its forensic examination of the licence assessment process has not uncovered any "smoking gun". In the words of one highly respected commentator, "no evidence of corruption so strong that nothing but such a conclusion could be viewed as correct.

Nothing even approaching that has been found". Of course, the Haughey report makes clear that no such standard of proof is required by a tribunal.

Judge Moriarty and his senior counsel are highly regarded and exemplary legal professionals. But after so many years investigating this matter, the pressure on the tribunal to produce a tough, hard-hitting report must be enormous.

Some of the central figures involved - Michael Lowry, Dermot Desmond, Denis O'Brien - may not inspire sympathy in many quarters, but the length of time that Lowry in particular has had this investigation hanging over him is surely wrong. The tribunal may not be a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, Lowry's case has been dragging on for over a decade, and that is unfair.

Although they are being handsomely paid for being there, nobody believes that Judge Moriarty, Jerry Healy or John Coughlan are happy that this process has taken 10 years. They deserve admiration for sticking to the task at hand and it would be fascinating to hear their observations on the tribunal of inquiry process.

With 10 years almost up at Moriarty and God knows how long left over at Mahon, there has to be a better way of carrying out such investigations. It wasn't supposed to be like this. It doesn't have to be like this.