Last-ditch attack on Moriarty Tribunal

MALIGNED independent deputy Michael Lowry has launched a vicious last-ditch attack on the Moriarty Tribunal ahead of its final report on corruption allegations.

He said its report will reveal nothing new and any adverse findings against him are the opinion of one man, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty.

The former communications’ minister said the unrelenting investigation into the granting of the State’s second mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone has put huge pressure on him, but he hoped its publication will give him closure.

An 11-page statement released yesterday makes no reference to Denis O’Brien, the man behind Esat Digifone, who was questioned by the tribunal on whether he had bribed Mr Lowry.

However, it does detail the TD’s involvement with two men associated with Mr O’Brien.

The Tipperary North TD said he accepted the links between him and Mr O’Brien had raised legitimate questions.

“I can 100% understand why people are asking questions and I can understand what people might think. But the facts are as I outlined them.

“I did not benefit in any way . . . [but] I understand that perception [of links to Mr O’Brien] led to the questions being asked.”

Mr Lowry said, after two weeks of requests, the tribunal wrote to him last Friday and ruled out recalling him before it published its report. He said he was entitled to defend his name as he had not been before it since 2005.

Since then, Mr Lowry said, substantial new evidence had come into the public domain to which he wanted to respond.

“It was extremely unfair and very unjust to deny me the opportunity to go back in to give evidence,” he said.

When investigating Mr Lowry, the Moriarty Tribunal looked at how he purchased a house in Carysfort Avenue in Dublin while he was a minister, with a 100% mortgage, and IR£147,000 refurbishment loan from a David Austin, who had just sold a Spanish property to Denis O’Brien.

And it probed his involvement with Mr O’Brien’s financial adviser, Aidan Phelan, in two English property deals.

Mr Lowry said these were above board, he over-stretched himself and lost out.

He said he got no money “directly or indirectly for property or anything else.”

Mr Lowry said his primary failings were in relation to his tax affairs, which he had resolved with the Revenue Commissioners.

He claimed all his accounts in Ireland and off-shore since the late 1980s were made available to tribunal and it was allowed to probe the finances of his sons and daughter.

Mr Lowry said he did not maintain his finances properly but this did not mean he was guilty of a crime.