The Government has promised it will vigorously oppose a legal challenge launched yesterday by the former Taoiseach, Mr Charles Haughey, against the right of the Moriarty tribunal to investigate his financial affairs and those of his family.
Mr Haughey, his wife, Maureen, his daughter, Eimear, and sisters, Ethna and Maureen, yesterday issued proceedings against the chairman of the tribunal, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty, Ireland, the Attorney General and the clerks of the Dail and Seanad.
In the unexpected challenge, Mr Haughey and the named family members are claiming that the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act of 1921 as amended, under which the Moriarty tribunal was established, is in breach of several provisions of the Constitution. These include the rights to equality before the law and the duty of the State to vindicate the right of citizens to their good name, to protect property rights and the right to privacy.
The proceedings were initiated yesterday on behalf of Mr Haughey and the named family members by Ivor Fitzpatrick & Co, solicitors. The State has eight days to respond to the proceedings.
The challenge came as the tribunal, which is charged with investigating the financial affairs of Mr Haughey and Mr Michael Lowry, was expected to begin oral hearings early in the new year. There was speculation last night that if the legal action proceeds it could become a lengthy and complex case which would severely delay the tribunal's work. Senior legal sources associated with the tribunal refused to comment when contacted last night.
A Government spokesman confirmed last night that papers concerning Mr Haughey's legal action had been received by the Attorney General. "The Attorney General is vowing to defend the constitutionality of legislation and will certainly do so", he said.
The tribunal, which is based in Dublin Castle, has been conducting investigations since September. On October 31st Mr Justice Moriarty said he hoped the tribunal would conclude its work by the end of the present legal year - in effect by next summer.
As well as seeking a declaration that the legislation under which the tribunal was established is unconstitutional, Mr Haughey and the named family members say in their statement of claim that they are suing Mr Justice Moriarty, the Clerk of the Dail and the Clerk of the Seanad.
It is not clear on what basis the judge could be sued.
The Haughey family are seeking a declaration that the Dail and Seanad acted unconstitutionally in directing that the Taoiseach establish the tribunal last September and that the order establishing the tribunal was ultra vires, or outside the power of the Oireachtas. They also seek a declaration that neither the Dail nor Seanad was properly convened when voting to establish the tribunal.
They are seeking an injunction restraining Mr Justice Moriarty from inquiring into their affairs. The claim also objects to the conducting of certain proceedings in private.
The statement of claim begins: "The first named plaintiff is a gentleman and resides at Abbeville, Kinsaley" (sic), before going on to make the submissions in the claim.
The Moriarty tribunal was established by the Dail in the wake of the McCracken tribunal which investigated payments made by Mr Ben Dunne, and companies he was associated with, to politicians. Mr Haughey finally conceded to that tribunal that he had received a payment of £1.3 million from Mr Dunne. He had consistently denied receiving this money until the tribunal team found evidence that the payments were made.
The tribunal discovered that Mr Haughey's lifestyle was paid for out of the so-called Ansbacher deposits, offshore money controlled by the accountant and close associate of Mr Haughey, the late Mr Des Traynor. The Moriarty tribunal was, among other things, established to see who else had paid money into these Ansbacher deposits for Mr Haughey's benefit.
The Oireachtas this week passed legislation allowing tribunals to direct those whom it considered had been unhelpful to pay some of the costs incurred as a result. Mr Haughey's claim also seeks an order that the suggestion that legislation be applied retrospectively is unconstitutional.