MORIARTY TRIBUNAL:The evidence of Danish telecoms consultant Michael Andersen was first sought by the Moriarty tribunal years ago, writes COLM KEENA,Public Affairs Correspondent
THE EMERGENCE of Michael Andersen at this late stage as a likely witness for the Moriarty tribunal is an extraordinary development by any measure.
An enormous amount of expenditure in legal fees has occurred over the years concerning the possibility of hearing from Andersen. Some of this has been incurred by businessman Denis O’Brien, but a larger amount has fallen to the exchequer.
In 2005, Mr Justice Quirke in the High Court ruled on an application from O’Brien that the tribunal should do more to have Andersen give evidence.
The judge summarised the background to the matter. In 2002 Andersen’s firm, AMI, which had acted as adviser in the 1995 mobile phone licence competition, was bought by Merkantildata, a Norwegian company that sought guarantees from the tribunal in relation to Andersen’s assistance with its licence inquiry.
A dispute between Andersen and Merkantildata further complicated matters. Andersen told the tribunal he would require an indemnity that would extend to Merkantildata and that would cover any claims arising from the licence process inquiry. The government would not grant such an indemnity.
A solicitor in Denmark, Oluf Engell (of Hjejle, Gersted and Mogensen), was engaged by the tribunal and various parties examined different ways in which Andersen might be compelled to give evidence. It was decided he could not be compelled.
Mr Justice Quirke did not accept arguments from O’Brien that his rights were being adversely affected by the decision not to pursue Andersen through the Danish courts.
Andersen met the tribunal’s legal team on a number of occasions between 2001 and 2003. In his statement yesterday he said the experience contributed to his decision to end his voluntary co-operation with the tribunal. He does not mention the indemnity issue.
Andersen would not discuss the matter when contacted yesterday by The Irish Times. A separate source said the AMI/Merkantildata situation no longer applies.
Andersen was contacted by representatives of O’Brien in the wake of recent sittings of the tribunal which heard evidence from officials from the Attorney General’s office. Those sittings raised serious issues for the tribunal and its credibility. It emerged the tribunal chairman, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty, in a ruling some years ago, incorrectly stated the position of the attorney general in relation to his view on a matter affecting the legality of the licence issued to O’Brien’s Esat Digifone in 1996.
The judge has changed his ruling but how the error occurred has not been explained.
In the wake of those hearings, O’Brien’s representatives made contact with Andersen, who has now said he will give evidence. His statement of intended evidence was forwarded to the tribunal by O’Brien’s solicitors, but a spokesman for O’Brien said it is not paying Andersen’s fees. The statement was forwarded by O’Brien’s solicitors to support their view that Andersen should now be called as a witness.
Andersen is chief executive of Andersen Advisory Group, which has shareholdings in a number of Scandinavian telecoms companies. He is adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, a former civil servant, and a former partner with Deloitte Denmark.
By 1995, when he and his then company AMI were providing advice to the department of transport, energy and communications, he had already been involved with 120 mobile telephone licences in 48 separate jurisdictions.
In his view, Esat Digifone was the clear winner of the licence competition, and one of the best bids he had, or has, ever seen. In his statement, Andersen disputes the tribunal’s view that a quantitative evaluation of the bids put Persona, rather than Esat, in top position. Persona came second in the competition.
The evidence of the officials from the Attorney General’s office appears to have put paid to some of the tribunal’s provisional findings. Andersen, it would appear, has the potential to affect other provisional findings concerning the licence.
There are other outstanding matters concerning O’Brien and the former minister Michael Lowry, but Mr Justice Moriarty’s report, whenever it emerges, may end up being a slimmer volume than many expected.