The former EU commissioner, Mr Padraig Flynn, could be called to appear before the Flood tribunal early next year as part of its investigations into allegations made by the Luton-based property developer, Mr Tom Gilmartin.
Public hearings into the allegations made by Mr Gilmartin about Mr Flynn and other political and public figures are now expected to begin shortly after the tribunal completes its present strand of investigations into the payment made to another Fianna Fail politician, Mr Ray Burke.
Mr Justice Flood is expected to give some indication of the future course of the tribunal today before it adjourns for the Christmas recess. The next public hearings are not scheduled to begin until mid-January.
With a number of witnesses still to be called in the long-running investigation into the allegations made by Mr James Gogarty, the present strand is expected to last another few weeks. Once this is completed, it is likely the chairman will make a statement outlining the progress made by the tribunal so far in its investigations and the likely course of future investigations.
The tribunal's failure up to now to make such an "opening statement" has been criticised in some quarters. The reason Mr Gogarty's evidence was heard first was because of his advanced age and poor health.
Yesterday's main witness was Mr Tim O'Keeffe, who acted as financial controller of Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering in 1989 and was the man who wrote the memo which, when revealed last week, sensationally linked the £30,000 payment to Mr Burke to "planning permission" on the company's lands.
However, Mr O'Keeffe yesterday denied that this link could be made. The reference to "planning permission" in his handwritten document applied to the entry above the Burke payment but not to the payment itself.
It all depended on how you read the document. The balance of the argument was with Mr Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, when he claimed that the £30,000 payment was listed with another under the "planning permission" label. But Mr O'Keeffe insisted he had entered no explanation for the payment, because he didn't have one. His boss, Mr Roger Copsey, told him only that it was an inter-company loan.
In June 1989, Mr O'Keeffe was given the job of collecting the cash paid to Mr Burke. He also wrote the face of the £10,000 cheque that was given to Mr Burke - but did not sign it - but denies having any knowledge of whom the money was paid to or the reason for which it was given.
Mr O'Keeffe's journey to the tribunal is at least as interesting as his evidence yesterday. After tribunal lawyers learned that he was the man who collected the Burke money, Mr Pat Hanratty SC, for the tribunal, contacted Mr O'Keeffe, who agreed to meet him.
However, when Mr O'Keeffe told Mr Copsey of this contact he was told to ring JMSE's solicitor, Mr Michael Fitzsimons. Any statements to the tribunal were to be made through Mr Fitzsimons, he was told.
Mr Fitzsimons talked to Mr O'Keeffe and a statement was drawn up last December. But it was never signed. A different, "expanded" statement emerged last March, though it never made its way to the tribunal until Mr O'Keeffe pulled the document from his jacket pocket yesterday morning.
His explanation for the double statement was confusing and contradictory. In the morning, he told Mr O'Neill that he disagreed with certain points in the first statement. By the afternoon, claiming he was "thrown" in early evidence, he denied refusing to sign the first statement. His only problem was that it described him as a "trainee" accountant when he had in fact qualified.
But as Mr O'Neill pointed out, all Mr O'Keeffe had to do to correct this was to strike out the word "trainee" and initial it.
In any case, the differences are more substantial. For example, the first document, penned by JMSE lawyers, made no reference to the involvement of Mr Joseph Murphy jnr or snr. Conversely, it put Mr Gogarty at the centre of things; from the witness-box and in his second statement, Mr O'Keeffe corrected the initial statement's claim that he reported to Mr Gogarty "day-to-day".
Efforts to get to the bottom of the two-statement mystery resulted in a marathon day that extended well beyond 6 p.m. By the end, Mr O'Keeffe was admitting that he "may have been confused" and the chairman was asking why it took Mr Fitzsimons "the guts of a year" to get the signed statement of the witness to the tribunal.