The wife of the controversial businessman Mr Jim Kennedy has blamed a "savage" and "slanderous" media campaign which branded her husband "a criminal" for his failure to give evidence to the Flood tribunal.
Ms Antoinette Kennedy accused the tribunal of "selectivity" and claimed her family had been "victimised and violated" by allegations made about it.
She denied all knowledge of the allegations under investigation by the tribunal, saying she couldn't answer questions that would be better asked of her husband.
Mr Kennedy, who is accused by the lobbyist Mr Frank Dunlop of trying to bribe councillors in Dublin in the 1990s, failed to comply with a tribunal summons to give evidence on Thursday.
Yesterday, Ms Kennedy told the tribunal: "If the media is fair and bases its findings on facts and not slanderous media campaigns, my husband will be fully vindicated."
When Mr John Gallagher SC, for the tribunal, pointed out that Ms Kennedy's husband had failed to obey a summons, she accused certain sections of the media of conducting a "savage campaign" against Mr Kennedy. This had irreparably harmed his good name, and that of his family. He was made to look like a criminal, linked to "this and that" as the media sought to make the news for the Flood tribunal.
"Do you think he would get a fair hearing?" she asked counsel on several occasions.
Contrary to media representations, her husband was not "a mystery man", she said. He had worked hard and paid a lot of tax on a lot of deals in times "when millions were millions". In 1975, he had paid the highest price then recorded for a pub. In one deal alone in 1983, he had paid tax of £1.3 million. "He didn't even get a Christmas card from the Revenue Commissioners," she added.
Her husband was a "very busy man" and the money "didn't come from nowhere". His history was well documented. He had found he could live abroad and pay less tax, but he wasn't "a criminal" for having done that, she said.
"He can justify anything he did over the years and there is no mystery attached to it." Ms Kennedy said she ran "a shop" in Westmoreland Street. It was a family business operating since 1974. In the past three years, it had been scrutinised during visits from tax inspectors, planning inspectors, fire inspectors and customs and excise inspectors. Then there was a visit from seven officers of the Criminal Assets Bureau in the middle of a busy day.
"They were seeking corruption as if it was sitting on top of a pool-table ..." Her husband had been treated like "any fool" who had been handed a bad deal.
Ms Kennedy said another person had openly stated that he paid £36,000 in relation to other lands. "I don't see his wife here. I don't see him being chased up and down the streets." She accused the tribunal of being "selective" in its dealings, at which point Mr Justice Flood asked the witness to refrain from making speeches.
Asked whether she had ever discussed the allegations about Mr Kennedy with him, Ms Kennedy said she hadn't.
Mr Gallagher asked: "Did you ever discuss these matters with your husband - did you say to him: 'Jim, you'll never believe what's in the papers'?" Ms Kennedy said she didn't. It was of no relevance to her. There were no allegations against her. She was representing herself at the tribunal and hadn't come to speak for her husband.
The witness said she was resident in the Isle of Man but had a "place to stay" in Deerpark, Castleknock, in Dublin, which she used from Mondays to Thursdays.
Her husband had lived abroad since 1989, she said, though he came "back and forth" over the years. The last time he was in Dublin was for two days over last Christmas.
