The Taoiseach has today announced the formation of a special committee of TDs and Senators to investigate the behaviour of Judge Brian Curtin.
In what is the first step in the lengthy process of Judge Curtin's removal office under article 35 (4) of the Constitution, Mr Ahern told the Dail today that a motion establishing the Committee would hopefully be brought before it by next Tuesday.
Article 35 of states that a judge will not be removed from office "except for stated misbehaviour or incapacity" and then only by resolutions passed by the Dail or the Senate.
The Taoiseach also said the Government was drafting a Bill on Judicial Ethics. His comments follow a Cabinet meeting this morning where the issue of Judge Curtin was discussed.
He stressed that "because of the nature of this process it is important that those members of the House that might be called upon to vote on the motion for removal must keep an open mind on such issues as may be brought before them."
He said the committee would have powers of compelability and would also have access to legal advice. However, in the interests of fair procedure Mr Ahern said the Committee would meet in camera.
He added that committee will "receive and record evidence" but would not pass judgment. That, he said, was a matter for the Oireachtas.
Complications for the government, with regards to this issue, stem from the fact that there is no precedent for the removal of a judge by the Oireachtas, despite it being outlined in the constitution.
Judge Curtin solicitor's wrote to the government last Thursday after being granted a two-week extension, claiming that it would not be constitutionally appropriate for him to answer to the Government, when the Government is contemplating a process designed to remove him from office.
However, Judge Curtin's solicitors said that he would respond to the Oireachtas "appropriately".
"There is and will be no place in this process for partisan party political interests," added the Taoiseach.
He confirmed that by law Judge Curtin would not be obliged to appear before the parliamentary body.
The judge had pleaded not guilty to the charges and because his trial collapsed and he was never convicted, he is understood to believe he has no case to answer.