Few people in public life have been "vilified so comprehensively" as the former minister, Mr Michael Lowry, his counsel told the tribunal.
Mr Donal O'Donnell SC said his client had suffered a "virtual Niagara of innuendo", yet there had been no evidence to support the central allegation against him - that he had been paid money by Mr Ben Dunne because he was a TD.
The truth, said Mr O'Donnell, was "entirely the opposite" to what had been alleged.
Mr O'Donnell said his client had a constitutional right to have his good name vindicated. This might be viewed "somewhat wryly"
because few people in public life had been "vilified so comprehensively as my client".
There were even fewer people who had accepted that they were necessarily the object of some legitimate criticism.
However, the protection afforded by the Constitution was "not just the protection of the good name of saints. It is also the protection of the good name or the reputation of scoundrels, and also that great mass of the population that lie somewhere in between".
The object of the constitutional protection was that only those criticisms which could legitimately and properly be made, should be made, and those criticisms which were unjust or improper should be comprehensively disproved and rejected.
The first thing of relevance regarding his client was the
"extraordinary extent of co-operation" Mr Lowry had given to the tribunal.
That was relevant to the question of the credibility of the evidence which Mr Lowry had given. While it was possibly true to say there were other people whose affairs, public and private, had been subjected to the degree of investigation and scrutiny as had Mr
Lowry's, "it is, I think, true to say that in no case has that scrutiny been the subject of totally voluntary disclosure on his part".
As the tribunal knew, a comprehensive statement had been made by
Mr Lowry on April 4th. "It certainly dealt with all the matters which were put to Mr Lowry or in relation to which he was challenged."
Nothing was said against Mr Lowry which he had not already acknowledged himself.
It had not been necessary for Mr Lowry to co-operate to the degree that he had. Without doing anything misleading, he could have "stood on his rights", rights which the tribunal would have been obliged to vindicate, and could have waited until evidence was produced before making any statement, or any discovery of documents, said Mr
O'Donnell.
"The significance of that is not just co-operation in the running of the tribunal, the significance of that must surely be that that in itself is an eloquent testimony to the credibility of Mr Lowry on those issues which remain in dispute because, as I say, at the earliest possible stage he had made a full disclosure to the tribunal, not just of matters which were in the public domain, but matters which were very much in the private domain and which could be said to have reflected upon him."
Mr O'Donnell said it was important to remember that his client had come into the tribunal after some months of publicity, "where there had been a virtual Niagara of innuendo about Mr Lowry and his position, his relationship with Ben Dunne and his relationship with
Dunnes Stores".
"It can, I think, be politely said that over his head there hung large public question marks, not to say exclamation marks, and the burden of that innuendo, chairman, the thrust of that was that he had no real or proper business relationship with Dunnes Stores," counsel added.
The innuendo was that on the contrary, Mr Lowry and his company's relationship with Dunnes Stores was in some sense a fictitious or fake cover for payments made for either actual or potential political favours.
"And as Mr Lowry said himself in evidence, the implication there was the implication of political corruption," said Mr O'Donnell.
The allegation was that payments were made to Mr Lowry and his company because he was a TD, and they had nothing to do with his business. "The truth, which I hope and trust had been established at the tribunal, is entirely the opposite," said Mr O'Donnell.
It would be unjust, he believed, to deal with this allegation in any facile or dismissive way. "I think it's important that the tribunal recognise that this was the central and the critical allegation or criticism."
"This was the urgent matter of public importance which required a
Tribunal of Inquiry to be established to allay public disquiet at least in respect of my client. It was not established as a matter of urgent public importance, I would submit, because people in business received payments in a less than orthodox way.
"If that were the case, the tribunal's remit would have been much wider, even in the context perhaps of the Price Waterhouse report."
Neither was the tribunal established because members of the Dail had financial or taxation or other difficulties.
It was the central allegation which caused the public concern, and it was because of his desire to meet that allegation comprehensively, and his understanding that because of his own errors it would be difficult for him to be taken credibly when he came to deal with it, that Mr Lowry had endured the undoubted stress, trauma and humiliation involved in the entire process.
Mr O'Donnell asked the chairman to not simply find there was no evidence to support that central allegation, but to make the positive finding that there were certain plain facts which were now established.
Those plain facts were that Mr Lowry received payments totalling
£65,000 sterling, which were "paid into accounts in the Isle of Man admittedly"; a further £90,000 Irish; and a further payment totalling £395,000 paid on his house.
Those monies were paid to him in the course of an enormously successful refrigeration business and for no other purpose, said counsel.
That was the central and critical matter and the fact that it had not been seriously challenged at the tribunal "should not allow us to distort the picture somewhat by moving on".
Moving to what he called "subsidiary issues", Mr O'Donnell said a person's personal tax affairs were not the subject matter of the tribunal. The chairman himself had identified this during the evidence to the tribunal of Mr Haughey.
Counsel and his client accepted that there might be some peripheral relevance as to the question of the existence of monies in bank accounts in the Isle of Man, and their relevance to questions of motive, circumstance and consideration.
However, in the terms of reference of the tribunal he believed it was fair to say that those questions directed themselves primarily to the motive of the payer rather than the payee.
That evidence had been given by the payer, and as far as Mr Lowry was concerned, he had not set up those accounts, he had not traded in them, he had not used them.
He accepted that he went along with them, but if there was a non-innocent purpose in having accounts in a place like the Isle of
Man, it was presumably because the person desired some advantage from not having the funds in accounts onshore. It was of some significance that the only thing Mr Lowry did in relation to these monies was to have them brought onshore, admittedly after some time.
Mr O'Donnell said it was also not within the tribunal's terms of reference to inquire into whether Mr Lowry had misled the Dail in his statement of last December. His client had been asked some 81
questions about this.
A Tribunal of Inquiry had great powers but it could not discipline a member of the Dail or ask him to explain his utterances. However,
Mr Lowry did not accept that there was anything misleading in his
Dail statement.
He had been asked why £395,000 had been paid in respect of his house and what he was saying was that this payment was a perfectly open matter which was known to a large number of people.