It was the politicians who set up the Flood tribunal to investigate the corruption in their midst, and now it is one of their number, the Dublin West TD Mr Liam Lawlor, who is cocking a snook at Mr Justice Flood.
Twice Mr Lawlor's name was called out in Dublin Castle yesterday and twice the deputy was nowhere to be found - he later denied a report that he had played golf during the hearing.
As Mr Justice Flood noted with regret, not even Mr Lawlor's legal team was present to hear of the tribunal's protracted efforts to extract information from the businessman/consultant/TD.
Faced with an avalanche of allegations about his financial affairs, Mr Lawlor has opted to bypass the tribunal, effectively challenging the Dublin Castle lawyers to "come and get me" in the courts.
Emboldened, perhaps, by his partial victory against the tribunal in the High Court last year, he perhaps feels that by not appearing he can save his best arguments for the courts.
The implications for the political establishment, the tribunal and the man himself are enormous. Is this the way the ruling class treats its own investigations?
Is the DPP prepared to prosecute Mr Lawlor for his failure to appear before the tribunal, and how long will he take to reach his decision?
Mr Lawlor is a wealthy man but he no longer enjoys the support of Fianna Fail, having resigned from the party in June. Is he prepared for a solo run, possibly against both the tribunal and the DPP?
After two years and 50 exchanges of letters with his lawyers, the tribunal's frustration was clear yesterday. The West Dublin TD had "furnished more questions than answers", he was "argumentative and contentious, long on verbiage and short on facts", claimed Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal.
Counsel read the letters to bear out his complaints. Already by October 1998, the tribunal was complaining about the "futile and argumentative correspondence" conducted by Mr Lawlor through his solicitors.
In March 1999, in response to the tribunal's request for details of his accounts, the TD sent in a four-page statement, and attached a copy of the Census, an ESRI report, a Central Bank report - everything except the phone directory and the information requested.
Asked for details of a term loan he held in a bank in Crumlin between 1987 and 1994, he sent the opening and closing balances for those years and nothing else.
At one point, the tribunal summonsed three bank managers who they believed had failed to provide information about accounts Mr Lawlor held in their branches, only to discover that the officials knew nothing about the tribunal's search. Mr Gallagher said Mr Lawlor had undertaken to request this information from the banks, but had never acted.
While the TD revealed three accounts he controlled, he failed to provide details and could not swear there weren't any others. He was "not disposed" to giving his consent to the tribunal to ask other financial institutions whether they held accounts in his name.
So the tribunal had to order 223 financial institutions to disclose whether they had any accounts in Mr Lawlor's name.
But when The Irish Times carried a front-page report on this trawl of institutions last July, Mr Lawlor demanded a tribunal inquiry into the alleged leaking of information. He was unsuccessful.
Meanwhile, the allegations heaped up. We already knew about Mr Lawlor's alleged payments from the developer Mr Tom Gilmartin and the lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop, but these were only the start of a long list.
There were allegations that he was actively engaged on behalf of the developer of Quarryvale regarding the zoning of that site. Mr Lawlor is also alleged to have received substantial amounts of money from Mr Dunlop in connection with the rezoning of other lands around Dublin.
Mr Lawlor received substantial amounts from National Toll Roads, it is alleged, including £74,000 for a report written in the early 1990s. And there were further allegations about substantial payments to politicians and about the faking of invoices for services not provided.
The tribunal is also seeking information about whether Mr Lawlor availed of the tax amnesty - probably the first time any tribunal has dared tread on this legally fraught area of inquiry. It was hardly surprising to learn that Mr Lawlor considers this, along with so many of the questions put to him, outside the terms of reference of the tribunal.
Mr Lawlor's case is that the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to investigate his private or business affairs; that he has a right to know the allegations against him before he appears at the tribunal; that he has co-operated with the tribunal by providing statements; and that he cannot be required to give evidence in public.