Misplaced indignation in whistleblower case

While the garda confidential recipient has directed his ire against opposition politicians, the media, and the whistleblower, he need only turn to the man who appointed him if he wants someone to blame, writes Michael Clifford

OLIVER CONNOLLY has done the State some service, but the statement he released yesterday does little service to his own reputation.

Connolly is the man who held the office known as the garda confidential recipient. He was fired a fortnight ago by his erstwhile buddy, Justice Minister Alan Shatter.

His apparent crime was straight out of the old Soviet Union — he refused to “repudiate” comments he had made about Mr Shatter, who is a leading member of the Coalition’s version of the politburo. These comments were caught on a tape recording secretly made by garda whistleblower Sergeant Maurice McCabe when the two men met on February 9, 2012. McCabe had availed of Connolly’s office to make complaints about what he saw as serious malpractice in the force.

At the meeting in question, Connolly was informing McCabe his complaints had been rejected. He also advised McCabe to be careful how he went. “If Shatter thinks you’re screwing him, he’ll go after you,” Connolly said.

That transcript surfaced in recent weeks, and Shatter sacked his old mucker for failing to “repudiate” it.

Yesterday, Connolly hit back in a statement brimming with righteous indignation, pointing fingers at practically everybody apart from Shatter. Loyalty, it would appear, is a virtue that Connolly values.

The statement lashes opposition politicians. “I have been subject to a concentrated attack by certain members of Dáil Éireann,” he fumed. “I find the posturing of some senior opposition political figures to be particularly disturbing.” He believes that he has been used as a means to get at Shatter. “The publication of selective excerpts from alleged transcripts of statutorily confidential meetings, twisting excerpts for political gain, and hurling accusations without context, are not characteristic of a functioning parliamentary democracy that respects the rule of law.”

He has a cut at elements of the media “for their salacious and attention grabbing headlines”, although he concedes that others in the fourth estate were fair to him.

McCabe is also in his sights. “There is a personal sense of betrayal that the principal whistleblower felt it necessary to vindicate his rights by infringing my rights, and by extension, the privacy of my family.”

His old mucker, though, escapes his wrath. “I have a particular understanding of the reforming zeal of which the minister is possessed, indeed, much of it I share.”

He goes on to state that he was not in a position to “repudiate” the transcript because that would betray his constitutional duty to uphold the confidentiality of the whistleblower. It is a theoretic point at this stage, but admirable of him to continue observing it. However, the logical conclusion of the position he adopts is that Shatter fired him because he insisted on upholding the law. Yet, he spares the minister the lash, and directs his ire at everybody else. Under those circumstances, it’s difficult to take seriously the righteous indignation.

Connolly may well have been a fall guy, but that’s what happens when you swim with the sharks in politics. He should never have been appointed to the office of confidential recipient, simply because he was too close to the minister. His appointment effectively eroded the independence of the office. That’s not his fault. That’s down to his old buddy, Shatter.

Connolly had contributed €1,000 to the minister’s previous election campaign, and the men were friends. Evidence from the transcripts, including the reference to Shatter “going after” people, suggests a belief that he was intimately aware of the minister’s character. Shatter and Enda Kenny found the comments wholly inappropriate, but the real problem was that Connolly was not independent of the minister. His comments were issued to McCabe as an advice of the political realities, and while that was not in the brief of his office, it’s reasonable to assume that political appointees are expected by their political masters to take account of these matters.

Connolly emerges from the transcripts as a genuine confidante on one level. He has sympathy for McCabe’s plight. He professes belief in McCabe, and in the evidence the garda forwarded. He expresses surprise that Garda management acted contrary to the evidence presented by McCabe.

However, if he was genuinely independent, it is difficult to see how he would have been happy to continue as part of a system that was patently not working.

McCabe’s complaints were going nowhere. It was plainly obvious that Garda management were not taking the matter seriously. And despite all the palaver about confidentiality, he knew McCabe’s cover had been blown. A truly independent appointee would surely have upped sticks and left on a point of principle.

The criticism of McCabe in yesterday’s statement is narrow minded. Secretly recording the meeting between them could be regarded as a betrayal, but by then, McCabe was completely isolated within the force, and ignored outside it. While Connolly was helpful to him, there was no escaping the reality that the confidential recipient also had skin the game, through his buddy the minister. Under the circumstances, it would have been remiss of McCabe not to take precautions to protect himself.

Where would the sergeant be now if he hadn’t taped that conversation, and the other one with a chief superintendent, of which transcript was published last week? He would be in serious trouble, just his word against that of powerful individuals like Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan. Instead, he had access to the record of the time and that has vindicated his position.

In the same vein, Connolly mentioned three times in his statement the effect this whole affair has had on his family. It is highly regrettable that any family would be robbed of their privacy over a public and political spat. But the impact he references is miniscule compared to the impact on McCabe’s family over the last five years. A little awareness in these matters might go along way.

Connolly is peeved at his sacking, and it’s difficult to blame him. It will probably be of little solace to him that the comments he was caught making on tape ultimately provided a vital link in the chain of events that have hooked up an independent inquiry. Inadvertently, Connolly has thus done the State some service.

But if he’s looking for somebody to blame for his fall from grace, he need only turn to the man who appointed him. Pointing fingers elsewhere is little more than self-serving.