The leader of the Seanad, Mrs Mary O'Rourke, may return to the tribunal to respond to allegations made about her by her former party colleague, Mr Liam Lawlor.
Mrs O'Rourke's lawyers yesterday expressed concern over remarks made by Mr Lawlor the previous day, when he claimed her evidence was motivated by the fact that she had lost her seat in the last election.
In her evidence this week, Mrs O'Rourke supported a claim by developer Mr Tom Gilmartin that he met Government ministers in Leinster House in February 1989. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and other ministers allegedly present have no recollection of the meeting, or say it didn't happen.
Although Mr Lawlor later withdrew his claim about Mrs O'Rourke's "post-Westmeath-loss-of-seat syndrome," her lawyers said yesterday they believed he was questioning the veracity of their client's evidence. Mr Paul McGarry, barrister, for Mrs O'Rourke, said his client had given "clear and unambiguous" evidence on oath to the tribunal.
Mr Lawlor had twice had the opportunity to ask her questions when she was in the witness box.
Counsel said that on the following day, when Mrs O'Rourke was not present, Mr Lawlor had made remarks about his client. Although he had withdrawn these under pressure from the tribunal, in doing so he had stated that the matter relating to Mrs O'Rourke was a "political issue".
Mr McGarry said it wasn't a "political issue"; it related to the veracity of Mrs O'Rourke's evidence to the tribunal.
Mrs O'Rourke remained "willing and ready" to return to the tribunal if required, he said.
Judge Alan Mahon said the tribunal was satisfied that Mr Lawlor had withdrawn the remark, which would not form part of the evidence. The tribunal didn't require Mrs O'Rourke to return to give evidence, but if she wished to come back to "clarify" matters that was up to her, he said.
Before continuing his cross-examination of Mr Tom Gilmartin, Mr Lawlor defended the length of time he was taking to question the developer. It was necessary to take Mr Gilmartin through the planning aspects of his proposed venture at Quarryvale in order to prove that the developer had no understanding of what he was trying to achieve, he explained.
He said Mr Gilmartin had said he was influenced in giving £50,000 to Mr Pádraig Flynn by a desire to "get Lawlor off my back". This was a very serious allegation and he had "every right to go into it in every detail".
But Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, said the tribunal was inquiring in to alleged payments to politicians. It wasn't an oral hearing on an appeal in a planning decision.
Mr Lawlor also accused the tribunal of giving Mr Gilmartin "special treatment" in relation to orders made in relation to the £50,000 payment.
However, Judge Mahon said this wasn't the case.
Mr Lawlor wrote to the tribunal yesterday to say he wouldn't be available to complete his cross-examination today because he was travelling to Prague. However, after some discussion with the tribunal, he rescheduled his flight and announced that he could now attend the tribunal this morning.
