Main party leaders write to Moriarty tribunal chairman

THE LEADERS of the main political parties wrote to the chairman of the Moriarty tribunal on Tuesday but did not refer to his …

THE LEADERS of the main political parties wrote to the chairman of the Moriarty tribunal on Tuesday but did not refer to his suggestion that he might issue two final reports on matters affecting Michael Lowry.

The party leaders met earlier this month to discuss the matter but the letter was only issued on Tuesday.

Mr Justice Moriarty wrote to the Oireachtas on May 25th to update it about his work. In his letter he said he was considering an early report on the “money trail” involving former minister Michael Lowry, with the long-running inquiry into the awarding of the first mobile phone licence to be the subject of a later report.

The judge also met Taoiseach Brian Cowen, to speak to him about difficulties confronting the tribunal.

READ MORE

In their three-paragraph letter the party leaders said that from their viewpoint they were “naturally anxious that the tribunal’s work would be completed as soon as possible consistent with its mandate and we feel sure that the public shares this view.

“We recall in that context that the resolutions previously passed in each House expressed the desire that the inquiry be completed ‘at the earliest date consistent with a fair examination of the matters referred to it’.”

The letter was signed by Brian Cowen, Enda Kenny, Eamon Gilmore, John Gormley and Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.

Party sources said the leaders did not want to refer to Mr Justice Moriarty’s reference to the possibility of two reports being produced, for fear that the expression of any view could end up being challenged in the courts. However, they also said the leaders did not want two reports being prepared, for fear such a move would be challenged in the courts and further delay the tribunal’s work.

It is understood that a number of parties who are the subject of confidential provisional findings issued by Mr Justice Moriarty in November 2008, have made submissions to the tribunal in which they argue that the tribunal’s terms of reference do not give it the option of splitting its findings.

The suggestion of producing two reports followed a development that a Danish consultant was now willing to give evidence.