Dublin West TD Liam Lawlor firmly believes he is "an accused man" before the Flood tribunal, the High Court was told yesterday.
The tribunal has taken legal proceedings against Mr Lawlor over his failure to appear before it on October 7th.
The tribunal obtained an order for the TD or his legal advisers to come before the court to explain his failure to attend, to hand over certain documents and records, and to give evidence in relation to these.
The documents relate to any accounts held by Mr Lawlor in any financial institution within or outside the State, either in his own name or jointly, and into which he made lodgements of money or into which lodgements were made for his benefit.
In an affidavit, the former Fianna Fail deputy said his solicitors, in a letter of March 12th, 1999, had given the tribunal a statement concerning the issues of Thomas Gilmartin and Arlington Securities plc.
On subsequent dates he gave the tribunal a detailed statement concerning bank accounts held by him, and a household account in the name of his wife, Ms Hazel Lawlor.
He also provided a statement relating to his performance of public duties in the context of the tribunal's inquiries in relation to the development of Quarryvale, Co Dublin.
His solicitors sought copies of all documents which had been made available to the tribunal relating directly or indirectly to him in the context of financial institutions referred to in correspondence between the sides.
A solicitor for the tribunal told his solicitors in a letter of April 20th that persons affected by evidence to be given would be provided with the relevant documentation.
Mr Lawlor said he was summonsed to attend public sittings of the tribunal. He said he had not received relevant documents and, in particular, had not received documents obtained by the tribunal as a result of it having issued 224 orders against financial institutions.
He advised the tribunal on October 9th last of a current consultancy in which he "was/am involved," Demographic and Strategic Consultants. He also told the tribunal about his position concerning the tax amnesty.
Despite numerous requests over the past two years, he had yet to be given details of any allegation, if such existed, which may have been made against him.
Mr Lawlor said he believed he was an "accused" man before the tribunal. He said he was not merely under investigation by the tribunal, but was suspected of being a corrupt public representative.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for the tribunal, said it was satisfied its orders were validly made. A citizen could not decide to ignore an order because they held the opinion it was invalid. The validity of the orders was not being challenged by Mr Lawlor.
The sole member of the tribunal had considered representations made in writing on behalf of Mr Lawlor, arguing that the orders were invalid, but had not been persuaded. Mr Lawlor had allowed the time for the making of an order of discovery and the time for his appearance before the tribunal to pass without challenge. Now he wished to invite the court "by the back door" to enter into a quasi-judicial review of the order. That was not an appropriate course.
Mr John Rogers SC, for Mr Lawlor, said the tribunal order required Mr Lawlor to account for every document he ever had which was relative to accounts, companies and the tax amnesty. That could not be right. If they related to accounts associated with the planning process, he would not have a difficulty but the order made did not restrict the documents.
The hearing continues today.