Planning tribunal chairman Alan Mahon has today rejected claims that the tribunal undermined the democratic process in its dealings with Taoiseach Bertie Ahern.
Des O'Neill SC for the Mahon Tribunal:
Mr Justice Mahon told the inquiry this morning that he "absolutely and categorically" rejected a claim by the Taoiseach's legal team that the tribunal is biased and bears some responsibility for leaked information during the general election campaign.
The tribunal chairman also defended the circulation of documentation relating to the Taoiseach's finances in advance of the Quarryvale II module.
Circulation of the material was "an essential prerequisite" to the commencement of the module and gave those affected the opportunity to discuss matters with their legal advisors in advance, Mr Justice Mahon said.
"It's a necessary part of the function of the tribunal to conduct inquiries of all witnesses," he said, adding that in Mr Ahern's case, this had been done in accordance to normal procedure.
He also noted that the tribunal had taken legal proceedings against two newspapers for publishing confidential documents and the matter would be before court again in July.
The tribunal chairman was responding in more detail to statements by counsel for Mr Ahern, Conor Maguire SC, who yesterday criticised the circulation of documentation which found its way into the newspapers in the lead up to, and during, the election campaign.
Mr Maguire said yesterday: "The actions of the tribunal in...circulating the documents at a such a time was bound to create a serious risk of an interference with the democratic process."
Mr Justice Mahon also rejected Mr Maguire's claim that the Taoiseach's finances were not relevant to the module which was inquiring into allegations that Mr Ahern received money from developer Owen O'Callaghan.
Businessman Tom Gilmartin has alleged he was told by Mr O'Callaghan that Mr Ahern was given IR£80,000 in return for ensuring a rival shopping development was not given tax designation. Both Mr Ahern, who was Minister for finance at the time, and Mr O'Callaghan have strongly rejected the allegation.
Mr Maguire had said the tribunal was putting enormous effort into a separate excursion to delve into minute detail of Mr Ahern's finances.
But Mr Justice Mahon said today: "The tribunal has ... found it necessary to probe - and to only probe - those significant lodgements which appear in his account and which were not accounted for by his income."
Mr Justice Mahon said if Mr Maguire believed there was substance to his claims then the appropriate place to air such grievances was before the courts.
The tribunal, which resumed yesterday after being suspended for the election, claimed that figures furnished to it by Mr Ahern relating to lodgements made in the 1994 cannot be reconciled.
Counsel for the tribunal Des O'Neill SC, said in his opening statement yesterday that a sum of £28,772 lodged to a bank account on Mr Ahern's behalf in December 1994 did not equate to the equivalent of $30,000 sterling that Mr Ahern said it represented, based on the exchange rates in operation on that date.
Mr Ahern said the sum had been given to him by Mr Wall on December 3rd for work on the house in Drumcondra owned by Mr Wall and which Mr Ahern eventually bought. Mr Ahern said the money was to have been used by his then partner Celia Larkin to oversee works on the house.
Mr O'Neill said the lodgement to AIB on O'Connell Street, Dublin, by Ms Larkin to an account in her name on December 5th, 1994 equated exactly to $45,000 dollars at one of the exchange rates being used by the bank on that date.
The total amount of sterling exchanged at the bank branch that day was just £1,922.55, according to records provided by the bank to the tribunal. Mr Ahern has inisted he had no significant dealing in dollars.
Mr O'Neill warned yesterday that people should not reach any conclusions about the transactions based on the opening statement and said there may be an explanation for them.
Mr Maguire described the tribunal's line of inquiry as "postulated theories" and dismissed its linking of the IR£28,772.90 lodgement with a figure of $45,000 as "completely fanciful".