A forensic trawl that lasted hours

BORED to death is how some felt after the forensic trawl through document after document that lasted for five hours at Dublin Castle yesterday.

Counsel for the tribunal read reams of letters to the mainly silent Taoiseach, sitting, waiting in the witness box.

But while it was an exhausting process, it was a necessary one.

Much criticism has been thrown at the Mahon Tribunal including concern over its expected final bill of €300 million.

The Taoiseach also expressed his frustration yesterday, saying if someone had made 20 accusations and 19 were false, why did he have to spend three years answering just one?

After a lengthy statement, he claimed it was his first opportunity to say something after being tormented for seven-and-a-half years.

Des O’Neill SC, for the tribunal, was unequivocal answering the concerns.

“I think you accept that when an Oireachtas resolution sets up a tribunal of inquiry, it’s set up for the purpose of conducting a serious investigation into a matter of national concern... the question of whether or not there was corruption in the planning process,” said the barrister.

Mr O’Neill yesterday repeated into the record dozens of letters between tribunal lawyers and Mr Ahern’s legal team, which began in October 2004.

Requests from the tribunal were scrutinised.

Mr O’Neill went through what powers the tribunal had, before Mr Ahern promptly said: “I make the laws too, I’m not here to argue about that.”

But it was a report by Mr Ahern’s accountant Des Peelo that came under scrutiny.

The tribunal had examined a total of 92 transactions in Mr Ahern’s accounts. However, despite numerous requests for the sources of lodgments, it took Mr Ahern more than a year and a half to produce explanations through his accountant as to where five lodgments of about £108,000 came from.

Mr Ahern then had to admit it was his fault the accountant’s report was not “comprehensive information”.

Mr O’Neill went through Mr Ahern’s accounts, his family’s, his former partner Celia Larkin’s and at every stage pointed to how continued requests for payment details were not fully responded to.

Mr Ahern claimed he had spent numerous Saturdays, five and six hours at a time, gathering information to answer tribunal queries.

But the forensic analysis of Mr Ahern’s response to tribunal queries went on.

It emerged that at one stage, the tribunal had threatened to issue a summons to force him to appear before a public sitting if information it requested was not supplied.

Mr O’Neill also noted that only during Mr Ahern’s private tribunal interview in April this year did he reveal for the first time there were foreign exchange lodgments made to various accounts.

His evidence continues today.