THE FLOOD TRIBUNAL: The former Fine Gael senator Mr Liam Cosgrave gets his chance today to respond to allegations at the Flood tribunal that he took more than £15,000 in bribes in return for his vote on rezoning motions.
Mr Cosgrave is one of nine politicians accused by Mr Frank Dunlop of bribery in connection with the rezoning of land at Carrickmines.
He will be followed into the witness box in coming weeks by the other politicians who figure in Mr Dunlop's allegations.
Mr Cosgrave has denied Mr Dunlop's claims. His lawyers made a number of unsuccessful attempts in recent months to stop the tribunal's hearings, and he even sought to address the tribunal directly last November to rebut the allegations.
On that occasion he was refused permission to speak, but in a statement read by counsel he accused Mr Dunlop of being dishonest, greedy, corrupt and a corrupting influence.
"My vote was never bought by him or by anyone else. Anyone who knows me knows that I have never lived or aspired towards an extravagant lifestyle. I always voted in accordance with my conscience and for the common good," Mr Cosgrave said.
He also complained about tribunal procedures and accused the media of swallowing Mr Dunlop's allegations.
Among the payments Mr Dunlop claims he made to Mr Cosgrave are: sums of £2,000 and £5,000 in 1992; £1,000 in 1993; £2,500 and £5,000 in 1997. Of this, £3,500 was given as legitimate political donations, but the rest was related to rezoning votes, according to Mr Dunlop.
Mr Cosgrave voted for the motion to rezone the Paisley Park lands owned by Mr Jim Kennedy at Carrickmines in 1992. He also seconded a 1997 motion to rezone part of the lands and voted for it.
Mr Dunlop concedes there is little documentary evidence to support his allegations against the politician aside from diary entries listing meetings between the two men.
One of the questions for Mr Cosgrave concerns an alleged meeting with Mr Dunlop in November 1997. Mr Dunlop says he gave Mr Cosgrave £5,000 in cash on Newtownpark Avenue, Blackrock, as the politician was going to a funeral.
The tribunal first said it could find no evidence of a funeral in the local church on the date in question, leading Mr Cosgrave to claim vindication and Mr Dunlop to say that the only knowledge he had of the funeral came from the politician.
It emerged that a removal did take place on that day. Mr Cosgrave is expected to say he did not know the deceased and did not attend the funeral.
