Developer Tom Gilmartin made "preposterous" and "spurious" allegations privately to the Mahon tribunal alleging property developer Owen O'Callaghan made offshore payments to Taoiseach Bertie Ahern and former Taoiseach Albert Reynolds, the High Court was told today.
Mr O'Callaghan said in an affidavit today that the allegations were concealed from him and were "wild" and "entirely untrue" and not subsequently mentioned in evidence by Mr Gilmartin before the tribunal.
Mr Gilmartin had alleged Mr Ahern received more than IR£100,000 from Mr O'Callaghan and also alleged Mr Reynolds had received Ir£150,000,the Cork property developer said.
It was also alleged by Mr Gilmartin that Mr O'Callaghan made payments "into Bertie Ahern's account in Jersey" and that Mr Ahern and Mr Reynolds had accounts in Jersey, Liechenstein and Dutch Antilles, Mr O'Callaghan said.
Mr Gilmartin had also claimed Bertie Ahern "also has deposits in England" and further alleged, according to a document furnished by the tribunal, that over IR£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.
In proceedings heard by Mr Justice O'Neill today, Mr John Finlay SC, with Mr Michael Collins SC, for the Mahon tribunal, argued that in producing to Mr O'Callaghan some 54 redacted (edited) documents, it had complied with the terms of a High Court order requiring it to disclose documents to Mr O'Callaghan for the purpose of the cross-examination of Mr Gilmartin before the tribunal.
Counsel said the redactions were for eleven reasons, including that in the tribunal's view they related to matters that were not relevant to and outside the terms of reference of the tribunal.
They also related to matters that had been partly investigated by the tribunal and not afterwards pursued. Some of the redactions were because the matters referred to intruded on the privacy of other persons 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. He told Mr Justice O'Neill that, if he examined the documents involved, he would be satisfied that they were entirely irrelevant, entirely personal and utterly inappropriate for use in cross examination.
Mr Paul Sreenan SC, for Mr O'Callaghan, argued his client was entitled to the documents in unedited form in order to carry put a proper cross-examination.
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 is in compliance 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.
He said that, 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 oral and written statements by Mr Gilmartin to the tribunal, he had been provided with some 54 documents.
Some of these were very substantial and they included a 75 page statement of Mr Gilmartin taken by Mr Noel Smyth on May 20th 1998. He said it was clear Mr Gilmartin was in regular contact with the tribunal and there was a gross disparity between the manner in which the tribunal had treated Mr Gilmartin and how it treated him.