The giving of evidence on Mr Charles Haughey's personal finances in the early to mid-1970s amounted to "a gross breach of privacy", Mr Haughey's lawyer said yesterday.
Mr Eoin McGonigal SC asked the tribunal to explain how evidence from this period, prior to Mr Haughey becoming Taoiseach in 1979, had any relevance to its terms of reference.
Under section (a) of the terms, the tribunal is charged with investigating any payments made to Mr Haughey which might have the potential to influence the discharge of a public office during the period January 1979 to December 1996.
Mr McGonigal said "during the period 1970 to 1977, Mr Haughey was not in public office as I would find it, and I don't understand at all, quite frankly, how all of the discussions between the bank internally and the few meetings that they had with our client comes within the terms of reference bearing in mind that we are supposed to be talking about funds directly or indirectly received".
Mr McGonigal said Mr Justice Geoghegan had ruled in the High Court, in relation to investigations into the Ansbacher accounts, that it "would be oppressive and constitutionally questionable" to delve into the period prior to 1974.
Counsel for the tribunal, Mr John Coughlan SC, said the AIB documents "have been served for some period on Mr Haughey" and he had not expressed any problem before with them being given as evidence.
Mr Coughlan said the tribunal was seeking to inquire into whether the forgoing of interest by AIB fell under section (a) of the terms of reference. He said the circumstances surrounding that forgoing of interest were appropriate matters for the tribunal.
Mr Justice Moriarty agreed the tribunal was entitled to investigate the period prior to Mr Haughey becoming Taoiseach in 1979. He said Mr Justice Geoghegan's High Court ruling was not binding and that "some relatively detailed setting of the scene" was necessary.
"Otherwise, what transpired at the time that pertains directly to the terms of reference would be to a substantial degree incomprehensible," said Mr Justice Moriarty.
He added that what may have been done by AIB "could amount to a payment or benefit" under a wider definition of the terms of reference.
