Gilmartin’s claims ‘entirely untrue’
The allegations were concealed by the tribunal and never disclosed to Mr O’Callaghan, the High Court was told yesterday.
Nor were the allegations subsequently mentioned in evidence by Mr Gilmartin, Mr O’Callaghan said.
Mr Gilmartin had alleged Mr Ahern received more than £100,000 from Mr O’Callaghan and alleged Mr Reynolds had received £150,000 from Mr O’Callaghan, Mr O’Callaghan said in an affidavit.
It was also alleged by Mr Gilmartin that Mr O’Callaghan made payments “into Bertie Ahern’s account in Jersey” and that Mr Ahern and Mr Reynolds had accounts in Jersey, Liechenstein and Dutch Antilles, Mr O’Callaghan said.
Mr Gilmartin had also claimed Bertie Ahern “also has deposits in England.”
Mr Gilmartin had further alleged, according to a document furnished by the tribunal, that over £1 million “was stolen from Barkhill, a property company of which Mr O’Callaghan is a director, and it was from this money that O’Callaghan paid Bertie Ahern and Albert Reynolds.”
Mr O’Callaghan said these “and many other spurious allegations of my paying vast sums of money to politicians” were set out in documents disclosed to him by the tribunal following a Supreme Court order.
In proceedings heard by Mr Justice O’Neill yesterday, John Finlay SC, with Michael Collins SC, for the Mahon tribunal, argued that in producing to Mr O’Callaghan some 54 redacted (edited) documents, it had complied with the terms of a High Court order requiring it to disclose documents to Mr O’Callaghan for the purpose of the cross-examination of Mr Gilmartin before the tribunal.
Counsel said the redactions were for 11 reasons, including that in the tribunal’s view they related to matters that were not relevant to and outside the terms of reference of the tribunal.
At the close of the day-long hearing, the documents in unedited form were presented to Mr Justice O’Neill, who reserved judgment on the tribunal’s application for a declaration that it is compliance with the High Court order.
In his affidavit, Mr O’Callaghan said he had fully co-operated with the tribunal since 1998 and discovered more than 35,000 documents to the tribunal at a huge cost to him personally and financially.
He said that, following a decision of the Supreme Court earlier this year upholding a High Court decision that the tribunal should permit him access to documents recording prior oral and written statements by Mr Gilmartin to the tribunal, he had been provided with 54 documents.
Some of these were very substantial and they included a 75-page statement of Mr Gilmartin taken by Noel Smyth on May 20, 1998.
He said it was clear Mr Gilmartin was in regular contact with the tribunal and there was a gross disparity between the manner in which the tribunal had treated Mr Gilmartin and how it treated him.
He was deeply disturbed at how he was treated by the tribunal.
