Photofit could identify ‘£5m man’

THE Mahon Tribunal has been given the name of a bank official who may be able to help identify the mystery man who Tom Gilmartin says demanded £5 million from him in return for supporting his shopping centre plans.

Mr Gilmartin also offered to create a photofit of the man he claims threatened that he would “end up in the Liffey” after he rejected the demand made to him in a corridor in Leinster House following a meeting with government ministers in February 1989.

He described the man for the first time yesterday, saying he was slightly smaller than himself, with an oval face and short cropped hair going grey in a “salt and pepper” colouring.

He said the man wore a grey tweed jacket and grey trousers, and was “pretty well-groomed and pretty- well spoken”.

Mr Gilmartin said with the help of a photofit artist he could paint the man’s picture. He also said the man, who gave him a piece of paper with a Bank of Ireland Isle of Man account number and sort code on it, had also told him the name of a man to contact in connection with the transaction.

Mr Gilmartin said this man was a bank official and he was asked to write the name on a piece of paper for the tribunal to make its own inquiries.

Earlier in yesterday’s proceedings, tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon ticked off lawyers for Transport Minister Seamus Brennan who took issue with Mr Gilmartin’s evidence the previous day in relation to the February 1989 meeting.

Mr Gilmartin has said Mr Brennan was one of nine ministers he met on the day and said on Tuesday that the minister was lying by making a statement to the tribunal insisting he was not at any such meeting.

Counsel for Mr Brennan yesterday asked the tribunal to grant State-paid legal representation to the minister so he could refute Mr Gilmartin’s accusations which he said were “outrageous, manifestly inaccurate and malicious”.

Judge Mahon said it was inappropriate that statements be made on the minister’s behalf or to accuse Mr Gilmartin of being malicious. “It is inappropriate to suggest he is being malicious. It is simply a conflict of evidence,” said Judge Mahon. He granted Mr Brennan limited representation for this section of the inquiry only.