THE CHAIRMAN of the Smithwick Tribunal accused the Government of a “wholly inappropriate attempt” to interfere with the independence of the inquiry by imposing a deadline of November 30th for the completion of its final report.
Judge Peter Smithwick wrote to Minister for Justice Alan Shatter on May 27th, three days after the Cabinet decided to table a motion in the Dáil seeking an interim report from the inquiry on June 30th and a final report on November 30th.
The letter, which protested strongly at the decision and asked for it to be revoked, led to further correspondence between Mr Smithwick and Mr Shatter in which they clashed strongly on the implications the decision would have for the inquiry. Six letters passed between both men between May 27th and June 17th.
The tribunal was established in 2005 to inquire into allegations of Garda or State collusion in the 1989 Border ambush of two senior RUC officers, Harry Breen and Robert Buchanan. It began to hold its first substantive public hearings and heard evidence in public from witnesses for the first time last month.
In the first letter, Judge Smithwick said he was “deeply concerned that the public imposition of such a deadline will compromise the work of the tribunal”.
He said the effect of the decision might encourage some parties who wished to frustrate its work to continue withholding co-operation. He also said it might discourage important witnesses from outside the jurisdiction from appearing at the tribunal. “I now formally and most emphatically ask you at the earliest opportunity to have the Government’s decision revoked and to make a public statement,” he wrote.
The judge said he had a constitutional and moral obligation to protect people’s lives, to protect reputations, and also a duty to fulfil his remit. “I intend to honour all those obligations without pressure or hindrance from any source.”
In his reply on May 31st, Mr Shatter asserted there was “no question of any attempt at what might be regarded as ‘political interference’ with the work of the tribunal”. He said the background to the motion seeking a final report lay in a meeting he had with Judge Smithwick in May, at the judge’s request.
“At that meeting you indicated that the tribunal would be able to conclude its work well within the timescale now contemplated by the motion”. He said the tribunal could apply to the Oireachtas to have the deadline extended, if necessary.
Judge Smithwick replied the following day, June 1st. He said the Government may not have intended to interfere with the work of the tribunal but “the decision and the publicity surrounding have had that effect”.
“The tribunal has already been told by one important witness outside the State (whose co-operation took some time to secure) that he is reconsidering his co-operation in light of the publicity given to the Government’s decision.”
Mr Shatter, in his reply on June 2nd, wrote: “We are both very conscious of the respective roles of the Oireachtas and tribunal. That is why I consider it would have been improper to consult with you about the terms of any motion in the [Oireachtas] relating to the tribunal.”
In his final letter on June 8th, the tribunal chairman wrote: “I am very sorry to have to repeat the point that it is the public imposition of a deadline and the accompanying publicity that has been the cause of my difficulty”.
Mr Shatter wrote his final letter on June 17th. He said because the motion had been passed there was “no point in prolonging this correspondence needlessly”.
“Clearly there are matters on which we must continue to disagree respectfully . . . While I acknowledge that some differences of opinion have arisen between us, I can reassure you that this has not affected in any way my full support for you in the difficult role you have undertaken,” Mr Shatter concluded.