Mahon tribunal lawyers have "rejected absolutely" claims they are pursuing any "agenda" against Taoiseach Bertie Ahern in their robust questioning of his account of his financial affairs.
Before Mr Ahern's began a further day of evidence today, tribunal chairman Judge Alan Mahon said he wished to address a number of matters in the hope that yesterday's "fractious exchanges" would not occur today.
Judge Mahon
He said a tribunal of inquiry was "inquisitorial in nature" and independent.
It does not make allegations or predetermine any matter. Judge Mahon said it would be a "useless and meaningless" exercise to put every witness into the witness box and simply record his or her evidence without challenge.
He said it was the "role and duty" of counsel to probe and test the evidence of the witnesses and of the documentary evidence in a manner that would ensure at the end of the day that the tribunal would have the fullest possible picture.
"It is right and proper on occasion for counsel to put to a witness an alternative version of events to that put forward by the witness," Judge Mahon said.
He said witnesses were afforded an opportunity to deal with conflicts of evidence or to clarify their position. This did not indicate that the tribunal was not "outcome neutral", nor did it indicate that any matter had been "predetermined", the chairman said.
"There is a complete and unfettered freedom on the part of the witness to reject or deny [what is put to them]. In no way is Mr Ahern being treated differently to any other witness," Judge Mahon said.
Mr Ahern's counsel, Conor Maguire SC, said he welcomed the chairman's remarks with regard to the propriety of the examination of witnesses but that this was, in his view, "different to what happened here yesterday".
The line of questioning yesterday, he said, "indicates an agenda".
"What was put forward to the Taoiseach was a hypothesis, it was quite elaborate and was obviously pre-thought-out," he said.
Mr Maguire said he believed that when the tribunal came up with such a hypothesis, that Mr Ahern's legal team were entitled to have notice of it.
"The hypothesis that was put to the Taoiseach was not just a hypothesis, it was an allegation. It causes us great concern that as far as this witness is concerned, that he is being treated as a defendant, that essentially this is a prosecution without an indictment," he said.
Tribunal judge Gerald Keys said he rejected the use of the word "agenda".
"I find it offensive and unacceptable," Judge Keys said. "I personally reject that out of hand."
Counsel for the tribunal Des O'Neill SC also said he rejected absolutely the suggestion that he was doing anything other than proceeding with his professional duties.
He said it was "unprofessional" of Mr Maguire to make such an allegation against him in relation to his professional integrity.
Mr O'Neill has resumed his examination of the Taoiseach and is questioning him in relation to the opening of a special savings account at AIB in December 1993.
Mr Ahern said there was "no intrigue" in the lodgement of £22,500 to the savings account.
He said he recalled meeting bank official Philip Murphy and manager Mr Burns on December 23rd (when he was taking a loan of £19,000 to cover legal bills and a car loan).
He had, at that meeting, indicated that he intended to open a current account with the bank in January, which he later did. Mr Ahern said he also told the bank officials he had savings that he would lodge.
When he was given £22,500 by friends shortly after Christmas, he lodged this to the special savings account on December 30th rather than lodge the £30,000 he had accumulated in savings and which he had intended to lodge, Mr Ahern said.
"I don't think there's any intrigue in this."
Mr Ahern is also being questioned on the "dig-out" of £22,500 that he says was given to him by friends on December 27th 1993.
Mr O'Neill suggested the possibility that the £22,500 lodged by Mr Ahern to the special savings account on December 30th 1993 was in fact available to him on December 23rd.
"I'm just questioning the possibility that they were available," Mr O'Neill said.
Mr Ahern said the funds "could have been made available if they were given to me" but that the money hadn't been given to him at that time, so the funds weren't available to lodge.
"The sun could crash into the moon but it didn't happen," Mr Ahern said. "The point is I didn't meet the person who had the money. It would be hard for me to get the money if I didn't meet the person who had it," he said.