It would be unfair to compare the work-in-progress of the two tribunals established by the Dail to inquire into payments to politicians and corruption in the planning process. Mr Justice Moriarty was appointed to follow through on the work of the McCracken tribunal where the affairs of Mr Charles Haughey, Mr Michael Lowry and any other Ministerial office holder who received money in dubious circumstances from the Ansbacher and other accounts, were concerned. Mr Justice Flood was given the much wider brief to examine allegations of political corruption in the planning and development process, along with payments to Ministers that might influence official policy.
Many similarities mark the genesis and progress of the separate investigations. Bitter political in-fighting arose between the Government and opposition parties concerning the limited terms of reference of both tribunals. It took media "leaks" and months of political pressure to force the Coalition into establishing the Flood Tribunal. To put it mildly, there was no appetite within Government for a root-and-branch investigation of the grubby area where politics and business intersect; and no desire to identify publicly the wealthy individuals who had maintained up to £38m in the Ansbacher accounts.
Government timidity was matched by the uncooperative response of the banking establishment and the determination of some individuals to block the work of the tribunals. The Moriarty Tribunal has now been in existence for 16 months; the Flood Tribunal for 14 months. In that time, Mr Charles Haughey and his family launched a nine-month legal challenge to the power of the Moriarty Tribunal to investigate their banks accounts without due notice, and won. A similar case taken in tandem against the Flood Tribunal by Mr Michael Bailey and his family also succeeded. Investigations already completed by the tribunals had to start again. Through it all, Mr Justice Moriarty and Mr Justice Flood complained of a lack of co-operation by various powerful interests.
As the first anniversary of their establishment by the Dail passed, a significant difference between the tribunals emerged. Mr Justice Flood declared that confidential information was being "deliberately and systematically drip-fed to elements of the media" in a "conscious and deliberate attempt" to damage reputations and to undermine the work of the tribunal. Evidence provided at a late stage by the Garda led to a two-month adjournment. Then, because of the advanced age of a primary witness, Mr Gogarty - and in spite of spirited legal objections - Mr Flood announced he would hear his evidence on January 12th. The way was finally cleared in late December when Mr George Redmond's Supreme Court challenge to the authority of the Flood Tribunal was rejected in favour of the public interest.
Public hearings before the Flood and Moriarty tribunals began in recent weeks. Evidence before Mr Justice Moriarty has been clear and clinical; the cross-examinations aggressive, even if the memories of key witnesses have been faulty. By contrast, the Flood Tribunal has been punctuated by a series of deliberate "leaks". And it has concentrated as much on Mr Gogarty's relations with his employers, James Murphy Structural Engineering, as on the payment of monies to Mr Ray Burke. Public impatience over delays, obstructions and legal arguments should not be allowed to deflect the tribunals from fulfilling the mandates they were given by the Dail. Their effectiveness can only be assessed when the reports are finally published.