Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's evidence to the Mahon tribunal is not credible, Fine Gael and Labour said last night, as both prepared to consider supporting a Dáil motion of no confidence in his leadership.
Responding to the ending of Mr Ahern's testimony, the Labour leader, Eamon Gilmore, said: "quite simply I do not find the Taoiseach's convoluted accounts of his financial dealings to be credible".
The Mahon tribunal may not report for two years, he acknowledged. "However, political accountability cannot be postponed until the tribunal produces a report, which may be two years or more from now."
Fine Gael has left open the possibility that it will put down a motion of no confidence in the Taoiseach following the ending of four days of testimony by him to the tribunal.
A Fine Gael spokesman said: "we are reviewing the detail of Mr Ahern's sworn evidence, and when we have completed our review we will form a political view on Mr Ahern's explanations for large cash lodgements into his accounts.
"Fine Gael will then decide how Mr Ahern can be held accountable to the Dáil. All options will be considered, including a motion of no confidence," he told The Irish Times last night.
In his first full statement on Mr Ahern's financial affairs, Mr Gilmore said he was determined to raise the issue with him in the Dáil on Friday.
"The Taoiseach has now given four days of evidence to the tribunal dealing with his bizarre financial arrangements over several years during the 1990s, including the period when he held the vital office of minister for finance. It is also clear from the opinion polls over the weekend that a great number of the Irish people do not believe the Taoiseach's evidence."
Less than one-third of the public believe the Taoiseach's version of events made to a tribunal set up by the Houses of the Oireachtas, Mr Gilmore said. "There is clearly a very serious issue of credibility for the Taoiseach. This is not surprising given the repeated memory failures on the part of Mr Ahern and the number of occasions on which he shifted his ground from explanations previously offered publicly by him in various interviews and statements.
"There is now also a serious question as to whether Mr Ahern provided the full and unconditional co-operation that a tribunal of inquiry would normally be entitled to expect from a head of the government, and particularly from one who has regularly boasted that it was he who set up the tribunal."
