The Dublin West TD, Mr Liam Lawlor, has been ordered by the High Court to appear before a public sitting of the tribunal within two weeks.
He must also provide the tribunal with various documents and records within a stipulated timescale.
At the High Court yesterday Mr Justice Smyth found valid the tribunal's order of June 8th last directing Mr Lawlor to make discovery of documents and records.
The judge also rejected a suggestion by Mr Lawlor that he might attend before a private session of the tribunal. Mr Justice Smyth said he was not prepared to strike down the order for Mr Lawlor to give evidence in public.
Earlier this month, on the application of the tribunal, the High Court had ordered the deputy, formerly of Fianna Fail, or his legal advisers to appear before it.
This followed Mr Lawlor's failure to appear before the tribunal when commanded to do so and give it certain documents and records.
The documents sought by the tribunal relate to any accounts held by Mr Lawlor in any financial institution within or without the State, either in his own name or jointly held, into which he made lodgements of money or into which lodgements were made for his benefit.
When Mr Lawlor failed to produce the records and documents sought by the tribunal by June 23rd last, two summonses were issued by the tribunal for him to appear before it on October 10th.
This led to the High Court directing Mr Lawlor or his advisers to appear before it.
In the High Court Mr Lawlor argued that he firmly believed he was "an accused man" before the tribunal.
He contended the tribunal was in error in seeking to compel him to give evidence in public. It was indicated that the deputy was willing to go before the tribunal in private. Mr Lawlor also argued that the "trawl" of documents being sought was too wide and should be narrowed.
In a reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Smyth said the sole member of the tribunal, Mr Justice Flood, when making a discovery order last June, had jurisdiction to do so and the order was made within his discretion.
He rejected a submission on behalf of Mr Lawlor that the scope and time of the order were too wide.
Mr Lawlor had had an opportunity to put his point of view before the tribunal had made its order, the judge said, noting the tribunal had written to him more than 50 times.
A timetable for Mr Lawlor to make discovery on oath was set out by the judge. Discovery for the period beginning June 16th, 1977, to date is to be made within one week from yesterday. Discovery for the period from June 18th, 1974, to June 17th, 1977, is to be made within three weeks from yesterday.
On the tribunal being satisfied that it is necessary for the fulfilment of its functions to have discovery before June 18th, 1974, it may extend the time of such discovery to begin on October 1st, 1964.
The judge said an order or summons of the tribunal of September 21st last directing Mr Lawlor to appear before it was valid and Mr Lawlor should attend before it and produce to it all the documents and records.
On the application of Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, Mr Justice Smyth allowed the costs to the tribunal of the proceedings against Mr Lawlor.
He said the sole member of the tribunal had been driven into a situation where it had made its order.