Ahern ‘not treated differently to other Mahon witnesses’

THE chairman of the Mahon Tribunal yesterday defended the line of questioning of Taoiseach Bertie Ahern by its own lawyers.

“In no way is Mr Ahern being treated any differently to other witnesses,” insisted Judge Alan Mahon, referring to the previous day’s “fractious” exchanges.

On Thursday, Mr Ahern’s lawyer Conor Maguire SC claimed the tribunal was following an “agenda” and trying to “stitch up” the Taoiseach.

He also claimed Mr Ahern was being pilloried — and it had been reported his evidence was not believed by the tribunal.

After Judge Mahon’s comment, Mr Maguire repeated that what had happened the previous day illustrated an agenda.

“There is no doubt about that. It was something that was quite elaborate and obviously pre-thought out,” he asserted.

And he further elaborated his objections to the line of questioning being taken: “The hypothesis that was put to the Taoiseach was not just a hypothesis. It was an allegation.

“It’s an allegation which is not supported by any of the evidence.

“And it causes us great concern that as far as this witness is concerned, and he is only a witness to the tribunal, that he is being treated as if he was a defendant.

“Essentially, this is a prosecution without an indictment. And the way in which this is being run, and I use that word deliberately, has been run by tribunal counsel in such a way as to lead to no other conclusion.”

Before Mr Ahern resumed his evidence, Judge Gerald Keys told Mr Maguire he also objected to the word “agenda” being used.

“I find that offensive and unacceptable in light of the ruling which we gave yesterday as well. I personally reject that out of hand.”

But Mr Maguire hit back: “I want to make it clear, and I address the judges of the tribunal at this stage — that I do stand over what I’m saying in terms of the tribunal counsel having an agenda in relation to this witness.”

At the start of the day’s proceedings, Judge Mahon said it was the role and duty of tribunal counsel “to probe and test” the evidence of witnesses and documentary evidence to ensure the tribunal had the fullest possible picture so that it could determine the accuracy and effect of that evidence.

“It is appropriate on occasion for counsel to the tribunal to suggest to a witness that his or her evidence is inaccurate, untruthful, unbelievable or is in conflict with evidence already given by that witness or other witnesses or with documentary evidence,” he said.