Mr Pádraig Flynn has claimed that Mr Tom Gilmartin changed his story about his £50,000 payment to Mr Flynn because it looked like a bribe. Paul Cullen reports.
Mr Flynn told the tribunal yesterday that Mr Gilmartin changed his story in 1998 after receiving advice that a payment to Mr Flynn for personal use could be construed as a bribe.
He was answering questions from Mr Liam Lawlor, who put it to the witness that Mr Gilmartin had fabricated his evidence about the minister's support for his projects. "I can't answer that. I don't know what he was thinking," Mr Flynn replied.
Mr Gilmartin has told the tribunal the £50,000 cheque he gave to Mr Flynn in 1989 was for Fianna Fáil, but Mr Flynn described this yesterday as "wholly untrue".
Mr Lawlor said he believed the witness, because in all his dealings with Mr Gilmartin the developer had never mentioned having made a contribution to Fianna Fáil. He asked the witness why he thought Mr Gilmartin was falsely claiming the money was for the party.
Mr Flynn said Mr Gilmartin had given him the reason for his change of story during their phone conversations in September-October 1998. The developer was quite distressed. He said he had been "advised in a certain way".
However, Judge Mary Faherty pointed out that in 1990 Mr Gilmartin told a Fianna Fáil official he had given Mr Flynn a contribution intended for the party.
Mr Flynn said he had no idea why this was so. Mr Gilmartin had not said this to him.
Mr Lawlor suggested that Mr Gilmartin had received legal advice that if he stuck to the story that the money was given for Mr Flynn's personal political use in Co Mayo, he could be seen as the provider of a bribe.
Mr Gilmartin had done Mr Flynn "an incredible disservice" by changing his position and he had done this because "someone" had come to the conclusion that the giver of the £50,000 to Mr Flynn, who was in a sensitive ministerial position, could be construed as having paid a bribe, Mr Lawlor added.
"In some instances, the giver is as guilty as the taker," he said.
The person who provided the alleged advice was not named during yesterday's proceedings. Instead, Mr Flynn, on the invitation of the chairman, wrote the name of the person on a piece of paper and handed it to the chairman.
Mr Gilmartin, he said, had confirmed to him "on many occasions" that the money was given for his political campaigns in the west. He had also said he changed his story because of "things said to him". Mr Flynn added: "He was told that if he persisted in saying it was given to me for a personal campaign it would be interpreted as a bribe."
Mr Lawlor pointed out that Mr Gilmartin's evidence was that Mr Flynn had asked him to perjure himself by giving a different version but he had refused. Mr Gilmartin had told Mr Flynn in 1998 the best he could do was to keep out of the tribunal.
Mr Flynn denied he ever made such a request of Mr Gilmartin.