DESMOND REACTION:BUSINESSMAN DERMOT Desmond has claimed Mr Justice Moriarty adopted the stance of a prosecutor, rather than independent investigator, and that the inquiry had a vested interest in achieving a "result".
In a statement issued last night, Mr Desmond said it was his belief the tribunal had been “prejudicial in its approach” and that its 2,500 pages constituted “the most lengthy and expensive comic ever produced”.
Pointing out that the tribunal “had not been investigating any wrongdoing on [his] part”, he said he was making the observations as someone “intimately involved in the tribunal process over the last 13 years”.
He said the key issue was whether the integrity of the GSM mobile licence process was breached by Mr Lowry or any other politician, and that the process was adjudicated on by 15 to 20 civil servants with an independent consultant.
Mr Desmond described the civil servants involved as “persons of the highest integrity”.“Each of the civil servants gave testimony under oath that Mr Lowry had not suborned or attempted to suborn them or the process. No evidence was put forward to the contrary,” he noted.
“In the absence of any political interference in the adjudication process, any interactions which may or may not have taken place between Denis O’Brien and Michael Lowry are just sideshows to the central issue of the award of the licence.”
“From the outset, Moriarty adopted a position to prosecute a case rather than act as an independent investigator. In my own case the civil servants had received legal clearance, from the attorney general, concerning my involvement in the Esat Digifone consortium. The tribunal ignored this clearance for over seven years, publicly misrepresented the position of the attorney general and only recently acknowledged its serious ‘error’ in this regard,” his statement said.
Mr Desmond claimed that because of the length and cost of its inquiries, the tribunal now had a vested interest “in achieving a ‘result’.” He concluded: “I make these observations so lessons may be learnt for the future as to how tribunals are organised and made accountable.”
