Developer Tom Gilmartin made "preposterous" and "spurious" allegations in private to the Mahon tribunal that Cork property developer Owen O'Callaghan made offshore payments to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds.
These allegations were concealed by the tribunal and never disclosed to Mr O'Callaghan, the High Court was told yesterday nor were they subsequently mentioned in evidence by Mr Gilmartin, Mr O'Callaghan said.
Mr Gilmartin had alleged Mr Ahern received more than £100,000 from Mr O'Callaghan and that Mr Reynolds had received £150,000 from Mr O'Callaghan, Mr O'Callaghan said in an affidavit.
It was also alleged by Mr Gilmartin that Mr O'Callaghan paid "into Bertie Ahern's account in Jersey" and that Mr Ahern and Mr Reynolds had accounts in Jersey, Liechtenstein and Dutch Antilles, Mr O'Callaghan said. Mr Gilmartin had also claimed Mr Ahern "also has deposits in England".
Mr Gilmartin had also alleged, according to a document furnished by the tribunal, that more than £1 million "was stolen from Barkhill [ a property company of which Mr O'Callaghan is a director] and it was from this money that O'Callaghan paid Bertie Ahern and Albert Reynolds".
Mr O'Callaghan said these "and many other spurious allegations of my paying vast sums of money to politicians" were set out in documents disclosed to him by the tribunal following a Supreme Court order.
John Finlay SC, for the Mahon tribunal, argued before Mr Justice Iarfhlaith O'Neill yesterday that in producing 54 redacted (edited) documents, it had complied with a High Court order requiring it to disclose documents to Mr O'Callaghan for the purpose of cross-examining Mr Gilmartin before the tribunal.
Mr Finlay said the redactions were for 11 reasons, including that in the tribunal's view they related to matters not relevant to and outside its terms of reference. They also related to matters that had not been pursued by the tribunal.
Some intruded on the privacy of others and were unrelated to the work of the tribunal.
Mr Finlay said the redactions related to material which was utterly inappropriate and a wholly unwarranted interference with the privacy of those concerned.
Paul Sreenan SC said his client, Mr O'Callaghan, was entitled to unedited documents to cross-examine Mr Gilmartin properly and to challenge his credibility.
At the close of the day-long hearing, the documents in unedited form were presented to Mr Justice O'Neill who reserved judgment on the tribunal's application for a declaration that it complied with the High Court order.
In his affidavit, Mr O'Callaghan said he had fully co-operated with the tribunal since 1998 and discovered more than 35,000 documents to the tribunal at a huge cost to him personally and financially.
Following a decision of the Supreme Court earlier this year upholding a High Court decision that the tribunal should permit him access to documents recording prior statements by Mr Gilmartin to the tribunal, he had been provided with 54 documents.
