Yesterday, for the first time, it was said at the Dunnes payments-to-politicians tribunal that the former Taoiseach, Mr
Charles Haughey, had lied. Mr Denis McCullough SC, for the tribunal, said Mr Haughey had lied three times. The word was used during Mr
McCullough's submission to the chairman, Mr Justice McCracken, and while Mr McCullough was addressing the issue of Mr Haughey's credibility.
At the outset of his examination of Mr Haughey on Tuesday of last week, Mr McCullough said he would bear in mind the service Mr Haughey had done the State. Yesterday, in his submission, the tribunal barrister was much more blunt in his treatment of the former
Taoiseach.
Mr Haughey's claim that he did not live a lavish lifestyle, when the tribunal had shown that during the years 1988 to 1991 Mr Haughey spent, on average and on top of his income as a politician, £
284,000 a year, was "at the very least, disingenuous", Mr McCullough said.
He made the point that irrespective of the truth or otherwise of
Mr Haughey's claim that he did not remember personally receiving
£210,000 from Mr Ben Dunne in November 1991, no one was contesting that this had not occurred. Therefore, Mr Haughey had knowingly received a substantial amount of money from an individual businessman while holding the highest office in the land.
He furthermore said it was "inconceivable" that Mr Haughey did not know the source of the money that supported his expensive lifestyle, or that Mr Haughey had never asked the late Mr Des Traynor about this.
When Mr Justice McCracken came to address the issue of the veracity of Mr Haughey's evidence he would have to bear in mind that
"Mr Haughey lied to the tribunal", Mr McCullough said.
Mr Haughey lied in his letter to the tribunal of March 7th, in which he denied receipt of the money. He lied to the tribunal in his statement of June 30th, in which he said that "as a matter of probability" he had received the £1.3 million.
These words "must indeed be weasel words", Mr McCullough said.
Mr Haughey also lied in his July 7th statement, Mr McCullough said. This was the statement submitted to the tribunal where Mr
Haughey said he had telephoned Mr Traynor in 1993 to say Mrs Margaret
Heffernan had told him he had been given more than £1 million by her brother, Mr Dunne. In the statement, Mr Haughey said that Mr
Traynor had advised him not to listen to rumours. In fact, Mr Traynor had told him, Mr Haughey later said, that Mrs Heffernan was correct.
Mr McCullough further said that during the lengthy correspondence which took place between the tribunal and Mr Haughey, Mr Haughey failed to reveal the truth. He had allowed the tribunal go to the
Cayman Islands, with all the time and expense that involved, while all the time Mr Haughey had the information they were seeking.
Mr McCullough said it was the case that Mr Haughey had compromised himself by accepting a large sum of money from Mr Dunne. He also said there was no evidence of substantial favours being given in return to
Mr Dunne or the Dunne group.
Counsel for Fianna Fail, Mr Rory Brady SC, never mentioned Mr
Haughey. His client's focus was very much towards the future.
Fianna Fail wanted an Ethics Commission which would inquire into allegations of improper payments to politicians. The party, furthermore, wanted a system introduced whereby politicians would have to produce tax compliance certificates and swear that their tax affairs were in order.
Mr Kevin Feeney SC, for Fine Gael, mentioned both Mr Haughey and
Mr Michael Lowry. He mentioned the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995, and the Electoral Act, 1997, laws governing the disclosure of interests by politicians and the disclosure of donations to politicians.
The tribunal should look at how these new laws would have affected the matters being considered by the tribunal, had the laws existed at the time, he said.
