A former senior civil servant has accused the Moriarty tribunal of ignoring “critical and overwhelming testimony” from those involved in the awarding of the State’s second mobile licence.
Mr Pádraig Ó hUiginn, who served as secretary-general in the Department of the Taoiseach from 1982 to 1993, claimed today the tribunal had been “grossly unjust” to the civil servants involved in the 1995 competition for the lucrative licence.
Mr Ó hUiginn served as a director of Esat Telecom following his time in the Civil Service and was a beneficiary of the sale of Esat Telecom to Britain’s BT in 1999 for €290 million.
In a statement today, he said the licence was awarded by a team of distinguished civil servants, assisted by international consultants of experience and "impeccable reputation in such matters".
“Their sworn testimony was that they came under no pressure or influence from the minister to favour Esat Digifone.” Inexplicably, the tribunal chose to ignore this testimony, Mr Ó hUiginn claimed.
The former civil servant said the inquiry’s findings raised serious constitutional questions about the conduct of tribunals when their findings damage the good name of individuals who would normally be protected by the constitution.
“It is unconstitutional that a judge can sit in private and be briefed privately by lawyers whose advice is not subject to the normal protection of being tested by public cross-examination,” he said.
“Moreover, in normal jurisprudence, the judge sits alone and any attempt to influence him would be a criminal offence.”
There has already been an admission by Mr Justice Moriarty that advice given to him in this secret way, as regards serious important evidence from the attorney general, was incorrect,”
It is not good enough in a democratic society that we conduct such serious matters affecting the constitutional rights of citizens in this unconstitutional way,” Mr Ó hUiginn said.
While the Moriarty report is critical of the evidence given by department officials about the awarding of the licence, it dismissed the possibility that they colluded with the then minister Michael Lowry to deliver a decision on the licence.
Allegations of collusion are “groundless, uninformed and bereft of the slightest objectivity”, the report stated.
