Nama would appear to want the best of both worlds. It wants the legal power and financial backing that goes with being an arm of the State but it would also like its actions to be judged purely on a commercial basis.

This has become clear in the agency’s response to the controversy over Project Eagle – its Northern Irish loan portfolio – and more recently the sale of some Czech assets by one of its debtors.

In both cases questions have been raised about the governance of the sale process and, in the case of Project Eagle, very serious allegations of corruption have been made.

Nama’s response in both cases has been to distance itself from the problem. Any wrongdoing that might have occurred in relation to Project Eagle is a matter between the buyer, Cerberus, and its advisers, they contend.

Likewise, the allegations raised over the sale of properties in Prague are not its problem because the sale process was run on its behalf by their debtor, Ballymore Holdings.

No doubt this is the factual legal position and would probably pass muster with shareholders of a commercial asset management business. But it does not really wash where Nama is concerned.

Like it or not, the agency is held to a higher standard than its commercial peers, and not only because it is the guardian of taxpayers’ money. It is also a State agency – and an extraordinary one at that.

So sweeping are its powers that a constitutional challenge to its establishing legislation was a realistic prospect. It is also allowed to operate in almost total secrecy.

With such power comes responsibility. When it comes to transactions in which Nama has an interest, the parties involved must all pass the same test as Caesar’s wife: they have to be above suspicion.