Taoiseach Bertie Ahern yesterday rejected the suggestion that there was considerable variation between what he told the Mahon tribunal privately in April of this year and his evidence yesterday. Colm Keena, Paul Cullen, and Fiona Gartlandreport.
In another difficult day in the witness-box Mr Ahern was questioned as to why he had not identified documents he should have identified in a sworn affidavit to the tribunal in February 2005. He was also asked why he had not identified a bank account in the name of his then partner, Celia Larkin, which held £50,000 belonging to Mr Ahern, in that same sworn affidavit.
The public gallery was filled to capacity for his appearance and Mr Ahern was greeted with cheers and boos when he emerged from the sitting in the afternoon. He has not completed his evidence and will have to return for another day, if not two days, possibly next week.
The questioning in the afternoon was focused on the October 1994 lodgement of £24,838.49 in cash by Mr Ahern to AIB, O'Connell Street, Dublin. Mr Ahern told the tribunal in a private interview in April of this year that the lodgement was made up of £16,500 he was given after a "dig-out" by four friends at around this time, and "circa stg£8,000" he was given after a dinner in Manchester that September. He said he was "certain" that the amount given to him by his friends was £16,500. However, yesterday he said the £16,500 figure was his "best recollection", but it could have been a different figure. Also, he might have added more Irish cash, or taken Irish cash from the total amount, before he lodged the money to the bank.
In relation to the sterling, he said he may not have lodged all the money he was given in Manchester, or may have added more sterling, including small sterling notes, before adding the sterling to the money lodged.
When Mr O'Neill said he was "somewhat baffled" as to why Mr Ahern's account varied considerably since his interview in April, Mr Ahern said: "I think there is very little difference." However, he agreed that the effect of the changes was to render "meaningless" an analysis by the tribunal of his earlier account of the lodgement.
Mr Ahern strongly disputed the suggestion from Mr O'Neill that the available bank records and the exchange rates in operation on the day of the lodgement indicated that the cash brought to the bank by Mr Ahern was in fact stg£25,000, and not a mix of Irish pounds and sterling, as he was contending.
Mr Ahern contested the basis for this suggestion and said to Judge Alan Mahon that he was confident that when the tribunal sat down to look at the matter they would consider Mr Ahern's argument to be "much more likely" than the suggestion being made by Mr O'Neill.
Earlier in the day, Judge Mahon said that Mr Ahern had failed to include in his affidavit of discovery, drafted in response to an order from the tribunal, mention of an account in the name of Celia Larkin which held £50,000 for Mr Ahern's benefit. The account should have been included, he said.
He made the comment when Mr Ahern's counsel, Conor Maguire SC, objected to a question being asked by Mr O'Neill, who had said the bank account fell "squarely within" Mr Ahern's discovery obligation. Mr Ahern said he felt he had complied with his obligations, pointing to a reference to funds transferred to an account belonging to Ms Larkin in the solicitor's letter which had accompanied the affidavit of discovery.
Mr Ahern also failed to include in his affidavit of discovery, sworn on February 7th, 2005, back-up documentation he had received from AIB two weeks earlier concerning a number of the cash lodgements that have since become the focus of the tribunal's inquiries. Mr Ahern said he thought he had included everything, but he accepted Mr O'Neill's assurance that he had not.