Onus on the Government to be open

THE Government’s deafening silence on the Judge

This goes to the heart of the controversy. There is no suggestion of wrong-doing on Mr Mahon’s part, but fundamental questions hang over the Government’s judgement.

Clearly, Judge Mahon was not in breach of the Standards in Public Office Act, 2001, covering members of the Dáil and Seanad, senior public officials and also candidates for appointment to the judiciary.

Under the Act, the Judicial Appointments Board cannot recommend a person to the Minister for Justice for judicial office unless that person has furnished the Board with a Tax Clearance Certificate issued not more that 18 months prior to the recommendation. Equally, the Government cannot advise the President to appoint a person to judicial office unless a tax clearance certificate has been furnished to the Secretary to the Government.

On Wednesday, when he issued the statement confirming he had made a settlement with the Revenue, Judge Mahon emphasised that he had told the Judicial Board about it at the time. Nothing can be clearer than that.

The question is whether the Government knew this when it appointed Mr Mahon, firstly, to the Circuit Court, secondly, to the Flood Tribunal and, thirdly, to chair the Tribunal’s probe into allegations of bribery and corruption against politicians and planners in the Dublin land rezoning scandal.

Without a shadow of doubt, his authority will now be undermined, because of the 25,400 settlement with the taxman. Regardless of how little tax was involved, and despite the innocuous nature of the miscalculation resulting in the settlement, the issue has come back to haunt him. It has also become a ticking bomb for the Coalition.

What people are asking is why, if it knew about the settlement, the Government appointed him to head up a potentially explosive tribunal involving, among others, the disgraced politicians Liam Lawlor and ex-minister Ray Burke? While the judge’s position is currently secure, the glare of the spotlight has turned on the role of by Justice Minister Michael McDowell in this affair.

As former Attorney General, he was a member of the Judicial Advisory Board when Mr Mahon was made a Circuit Court judge last year, telling the board he had paid a tax settlement.

The Justice Minister has questions to answer. Was he aware of the lapse in the judge’s tax history? If so, did he make this known to Cabinet when the Government nominated Judge Mahon to the Flood Tribunal and later appointed him to chair the hearing following the resignation of Justice Feargus Flood? If not, why not ?

He should now make a clean breast of what he knew. Ominously, for the minister, the Government has moved to distance other Cabinet members from the controversy. Adopting a Pontius Pilate strategy of hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, it claims that, under the appointments procedure, the Cabinet receives only the names of those recommended by the judicial board. Obviously, such a limited practice is in need of urgent change.

There is an onus on the Government to reveal what information it had of the judge’s tax liability. The probity of Judge Mahon is not in doubt, but Minister

McDowell’s judgement is in question and his political future in the balance.