O’Brien: ‘I don’t know how tribunal got this far’

DENIS O’BRIEN concluded his evidence to the Moriarty Tribunal yesterday with a further rebuke of the inquiry’s legal team.

The telecoms tycoon branded the 10-year-old inquiry a waste of time as he again stated his innocence of allegations that he had made a corrupt payment to former minister Michael Lowry.

Mr O’Brien pointed out that he was the 12th witness in the Doncaster Rovers module, none of whom had ever given any evidence to suggest that Mr Lowry was involved in the acquisition of the club.

He urged the tribunal chairman Mr Justice Michael Moriarty to reflect that fact in his final report, which is expected to be published by the end of 2007.

“All these things are tenuous,” remarked Mr O’Brien. “I don’t understand how it got this far at such expense.”

He reminded the tribunal that his legal representation at the current module had personally cost him around €5m. Mr O’Brien said such matters explained why he found the whole inquiry so frustrating.

“I feel this is seriously flawed — the whole process,” he told Justice Moriarty who replied that he noted the witness’ comments.

Mr O’Brien also criticised the tribunal for failing to call evidence from Michael Andersen, the head of Danish consultancy firm AMI, which carried out an independent assessment of the mobile phone licence bidders for the Irish government.

Mr O’Brien accused the tribunal of engaging in a “ready-up” because they did not really want evidence which supported his position.

He claimed the Danish advisers were also afraid they would get caught up in potential legal proceedings which could be brought by the unsuccessful bidder Persona.

He also questioned the expertise of economic consultant, Peter Bacon, who was hired by the tribunal to carry out an examination of AMI’s assessment work.

Mr O’Brien said he did not know how Mr Bacon, who did not appear to have any experience of mobile phone licences, could judge Mr Andersen who had been involved in the awarding of 120 such licences around the world.

Asked if his Esat consortium which won the licence was the best applicant, Mr O’Brien replied: “Quite definitely, but people have forgotten that.”

He also complained about the impact the constant dealings with the inquiry had on his private and business life.

Mr O’Brien said allegations and evidence which arose at the tribunal had been used by his telecom rival Cable & Wireless in the Caribbean to “question my integrity”.

He also doubted that the tribunal’s report, which he predicted would vindicate his claims that he had never made a corrupt payment to Mr Lowry, would ever get the same publicity as the initial damaging allegations.

Mr O’Brien concluded his evidence by claiming the tribunal’s decision to seek his wife’s medical records six years ago following the birth of their daughter was the “most disappointing and hurtful” element of his dealings with the inquiry.