The chairman of the Moriarty tribunal has issued a ruling rejecting submissions by businessman Denis O'Brien and others that he abandon his inquiry into the 1995 mobile phone licence competition, won by Esat Digifone, writes Colm Keena, Public Affairs Correspondent.
Justice Michael Moriarty, in a 36-page ruling yesterday, outlined aspects of the evidence heard to date to which the tribunal would have to give particular attention. He emphasised that his comments should not be taken to mean he had reached any conclusions.
He is now to examine whether businessman Dermot Desmond became involved in Esat Digifone following the intervention of the then minister for communications Michael Lowry.
Mr Desmond made in excess of €130 million as a result of his involvement in the company.
The tribunal is investigating whether Mr Lowry interfered in the competition and whether any such interference benefited the winner of the mobile phone licence, Mr O'Brien's Esat digifone.
The competition was run by a team of civil servants and Mr Lowry was to have no role in the process.
In his ruling yesterday, posted on the tribunal's website, Mr Justice Moriarty listed a number of "apparent deviations" from the confidentiality which was to have surrounded the competition process for the mobile phone licence and which might indicate the extent to which the process was capable of being penetrated by Mr Lowry.
One of the apparent deviations listed by Mr Justice Moriarty was a meeting in Hartigan's pub, Dublin, in September 1995 between Mr Lowry and Mr O'Brien, the founder of Esat Digifone.
Some of the evidence suggested that Mr Lowry discussed the Esat application with Mr O'Brien during the meeting, Mr Justice Moriarty said.
Mr O'Brien has said this was not the case and that they discussed his landline business, Esat Telecom.
The chairman said some evidence suggested Mr Lowry may have told Mr O'Brien how a perceived defect in the Esat Digifone bid could be rectified.
"A question upon which I will be obliged to reach a conclusion is as to whether, and if so to what extent, the involvement of IIU [the investment vehicle of Dermot Desmond] or of Dermot Desmond was discussed at that meeting, and further the extent to which any such discussions were reflected in steps taken between 18th September, 1995 and 29th September, 1995 to substitute IIU/Mr Dermot Desmond for banks listed in the bid document."
The involvement of IIU was not disclosed at the time of the competition or in the period afterwards when the actual award of the licence was being negotiated.
The licence was the most lucrative commercial licence ever issued by the State.
The consortium which came second in the competition, Persona, is suing the State and could, should it win, seek well in excess of €100 million in damages.
Mr Justice Moriarty said "it may be reasonable to conclude that there were defects" in the competition and licence awarding process. This was not necessarily evidence of improper interference, he said.
However, it would be necessary to evaluate whether the failure to follow the original evaluation model devised for the competition, was due to outside interference.
He said the conclusion of the competition process may have been accelerated at Mr Lowry's direction.
There may have been "a reluctance on the part of the officials to scrutinise certain aspects" of the two leading bids as a result of Mr Lowry's intervention.
Mr Justice Moriarty said a "train" of transactions that involved Mr Lowry and persons linked with the Esat bid are being considered.
Confidentiality may have been "breached"; Tribunal to decide if £150,000 payment for Lowry 'got stuck': page 7