When will we hear from the Moriarty tribunal again?

The Moriarty tribunal has declined to comment on the reasons for the long delay in holding public hearings, writes Colm Keena…

The Moriarty tribunal has declined to comment on the reasons for the long delay in holding public hearings, writes Colm Keena, Public Affairs Correspondent

Where has the Moriarty (Payments to Politicians) tribunal gone?

The tribunal last sat to hear evidence on March 2nd, 2004. It was on a roll at the time, hearing evidence in relation to the awarding of the State's second mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone in 1996. It broke for Easter and it was expected that hearings would resume within two weeks.

However, the tribunal disappeared into private session for six months. When it sat again on September 15th, 2004, the tribunal said it was going to hear evidence it had gathered in relation to Doncaster Rovers Football Club Ltd, a company bought by Denis O'Brien in 1998.

READ MORE

The tribunal wants to investigate whether the former minister for transport, energy and communications, Michael Lowry, was in any way connected with this deal.

Mr O'Brien went to the High Court to challenge the tribunal's decision to hold public hearings into the matter, the High Court ruled against him, and a Supreme Court challenge to that finding is ongoing.

Meanwhile, there is no sign of public hearings resuming into the licence issue and no explanation as to why this is so. Asked for a comment, the tribunal told The Irish Times that no comment would be forthcoming.

It was not made clear in September 2004 why the tribunal had decided to put its hearing of evidence on the licence issue on hold, in order to hear evidence concerning Doncaster. Nor has any comment been made publicly as to why, once the Doncaster issue was put on hold pending the hearings in the Four Courts, the tribunal has not resumed its hearings into the licence issue.

Last year, around this time, it was expected that the hearings into the licence issue would be completed by July, or soon after the summer break at the latest.

The decision to grant a licence to Esat was taken by a group of civil servants. The tribunal spent about a year conducting inquiries in private into the issue before opening public hearings in December 2002.

So the civil servants have had the issue hanging over them for more than three years and have no knowledge as to what the cause of the delay is or when they can expect to see a report from the tribunal. This is very unfair to the people involved.

The evidence that has been heard did not include anything to indicate that they were involved in anything improper.

They are not the only ones affected by the delays that have dogged the tribunal. The tribunal was established in September 1997 when there was huge public controversy about payments to the former taoiseach, Charles Haughey, payments to Mr Lowry, and connections that may or may not have existed between the Ansbacher deposits and holders of public office.

A large number of people have now given evidence to the tribunal in relation to these matters, including people about whom the evidence produced could be interpreted in different ways. Again, it is very unfair to these people that they have been left waiting for years for a finding from the tribunal.

The tribunal chairman is Mr Justice Michael Moriarty. He has in the past, seemingly responding to criticism, pointed out that it operates with a limited number of personnel.

However, the amount of public money being spent by the tribunal is not insignificant. Its three senior counsel earn between €2,000 and €2,500 per day and the tribunal also has legal research assistants, a solicitor, and administrative staff. Total costs to the end of February were just over €19 million but this is a small percentage of the likely eventual cost to the taxpayer of the tribunal's work, as the legal bills of those who have been represented before the tribunal will not be sent in until the tribunal's work is complete.

An aspect of tribunals generally is that they have control over the public purse in the way they do, while not being accountable for the efficiency, or otherwise, with which they operate.