A former secretary general at the Department of the Taoiseach contacted the Attorney General's office to hurry legal clearance for CI╔'s deal with Esat.
Mr Pβdraig ╙ hUig∅nn, a director of Esat from 1994 to 2000, told the inquiry he rang both the Department of Public Enterprise and the Attorney General's office to see what was holding up the statutory instrument CI╔ needed.
But he could not remember who he spoke to and did not know whether it had any effect. He remembered only being told the instrument was "in the process" of being drawn up.
Mr Pat Rabbitte TD asked Mr ╙ hUig∅nn if his approach to the Attorney General's office was not unusual given that the Attorney General had "only one category of client - Government Ministers" and could not give legal advice to the public.
Mr ╙ hUig∅nn said he was not seeking legal advice but merely to know why the statutory instrument was delayed.
He did not explain why the minutes of an Esat board meeting in March 1998 recorded appreciation for his "central role" in securing the statutory instrument. He said all he had done was make phone calls.
He was asked if he was surprised that the instrument was granted in March after going to the Department of Public Enterprise two weeks before Christmas when the inquiry had already heard CI╔ once waited six years for an instrument to alter terms of its pension scheme. He replied that he presumed the authorities understood the importance of the document given the Government's policy of opening up the telecommunications market.
Mr ╙ hUig∅nn rejected the suggestion that he was "chosen to hurry it up" because of his contacts in the Civil Service. He said he had offered to make the calls.
Esat founder, Mr Denis O'Brien, told the inquiry he asked Mr ╙ hUig∅nn to join the board because he had "a very strong understanding of Government and how Government operated".
He rejected a suggestion that Mr ╙ hUig∅nn's input was vital because there was a "crisis" over the statutory instrument.
He said he was never in doubt that the instrument would be signed because it would have been "totally illogical" for the Government to refuse it in view of its policy of supporting private telecoms ventures.