THE CHAIRMAN of the Moriarty tribunal wrote to the Taoiseach, Brian Cowen, in May assuring him that information he had given him about the tribunal’s work was “not incorrect in any respect”.
Mr Justice Moriarty wrote the letter after a report appeared in The Irish Timeson May 7th concerning what the Dáil had been told about the likely appearance at the tribunal of a Danish telecoms consultant, Michael Andersen.
Documents released by Mr Cowen’s department on foot of a Freedom of Information request show the department regularly checks with the tribunal as to when its final report might be published, so that Mr Cowen can answer questions on the matter in the Dáil. Mr Justice Moriarty told Mr Cowen in correspondence in April that, “because of the uncertainty surrounding the prospective attendance” of Mr Andersen, it was not possible to assess how his potential appearance would impact on the tribunal’s timescale for a final report. Mr Cowen told the Dáil Mr Andersen had not yet signalled “that he is agreeable to attending as a witness”.
On May 10th The Irish Timesreported that Mr Andersen's solicitor had been told of Mr Cowen's comments in the Dáil by solicitors for businessman Denis O'Brien. The Danish solicitor had responded in writing, noting that the report said, "that my client has not yet signalled to the tribunal that he is agreeable to attending as a witness. This is not correct".
On the day the report appeared Mr Justice Moriarty wrote to Mr Cowen saying the report “suggests that the information which I furnished to you in that regard was incorrect. I wish to state that the information which I provided to you on that occasion was not incorrect in any respect”. The latter few words were underlined.
The next day Mr Justice Moriarty wrote again to the Taoiseach: “I understand that the information conveyed in this correspondence (between Mr O’Brien’s and Mr Andersen’s solicitors) appears to be at variance with the contents of my letters of 23rd April 2010 and May 10th, 2010,” Mr Justice Moriarty said in the opening of his letter. On May 19th Mr Cowen replied, saying he thought it might be useful to “recap the events that led up to” the judge’s letter. He enclosed a copy of the correspondence he had received from the Chief State Solicitor’s office.
“In view of what the correspondence said, and as I would be answering PQs on the following day, my officials asked the registrar for a tribunal comment on the correspondence. This led to your letter of May 11th.
“I trust that clarifies matters. There was, obviously, no intention on my department’s part to suggest that the contents of your letters of April 23rd and May 10th were misleading,” Mr Cowen said.
Mr Andersen is considered an important witness for the tribunal’s inquiry into the State’s second mobile phone licence competition, won by Mr O’Brien’s Esat Digifone.
