Published Wednesday, 10 February 2010
Lawyers for a woman whose parents were killed by the IRA also claimed Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness stone-walled all attempts to "pierce the veil of secrecy" which allegedly surrounded the process.
Michelle Williamson is appealing a ruling that the former First Minister and current Deputy First Minister broke no laws by appointing multiple commissioners.
Her claims that the pair identified candidates on the basis of religious beliefs or political opinion rather than merit were also dismissed in the High Court last year.
But legal representatives of Ms Williamson, who lost both parents in the 1993 bomb attack on Belfast's Shankill Road, insist there was no legal authority to bring four people into the role.
It was originally planned to have a single commissioner on a 65,000 a year salary to represent those bereaved during 35 years of conflict in Northern Ireland.
After the original process was ditched, however, it was announced in January 2008 that Patricia MacBride, whose brother was an IRA volunteer killed on active service, RUC widow Bertha McDougal, former broadcaster Mike Nesbitt and Brendan McAllister, director of Mediation Northern Ireland, would each be taking up the post.
Challenging the dismissal of Ms Williamson's judicial review application in the Court of Appeal, Barry Macdonald QC gave two reasons why the case was so important.
He said it concerned the protection of victims' interests for years to come, and how the First and Deputy First Ministers exercise joint authority under Northern Ireland's new constitutional arrangements.
Mr Macdonald claimed no consultation took place before four commissioners were appointed, and that the decision-making process had "all the hallmarks of secret negotiations which were designed to stay secret".
He contended: "They drew a veil of secrecy over their discussions and have gone to great lengths to prevent anyone, including the court, from piercing the veil."
According to the barrister officials were excluded from private meetings where not a single note was taken.
The court heard Mr Paisley and Mr McGuinness declined to answer questions in the judicial review proceedings and successfully resisted attempts to have them give evidence.
Mr Macdonald said he recognised their right to rely on every legal defence open to them to prevent disclosure of this material.
"But the fact that they have done so in order to shield themselves from any scrutiny is a matter which, in our submission, can be relied upon by the court," he argued.
The appeal continues.