Des O'Malley has a nerve demanding apologies from RTÉ for its suggestion that he may have doctored the Book of Evidence for the 1970 arms trial. What he did in relation to the arms trial was far worse than anything RTÉ alleged he did and, anyway, isn't RTÉ his greatest fan?
Before I go on, let me say I think Mr O'Malley was one of the most impressive politicians of his generation, and certainly the most effective in exposing malpractice and corruption.
More than anybody else, he exposed the absurdity that was at the root of Justin Keating's deal with Bula some 25 years ago.
It was he who drew attention to the scam of the export credit insurance cover scheme for the export of beef to Iraq, and right at the time that Saddam Hussein was gassing Kurds and Iranians.
During the time he was engaged in the business portfolios, whether as a minister or as an opposition front-bench spokesman, he was incorruptible, and although ideologically pro-business, in reality a thorn in the side of business.
I also feel biased in his favour for another reason and I have made this point before. It is because of his wife, Pat. If someone as perspicacious, wise and human as Pat McAleer, of Omagh, thinks Des O'Malley is a fine fellow, as undoubtedly she does, then he can't be even half bad. So with that out of the way.
The Prime Time suggestion that Mr O'Malley was involved in doctoring the Book of Evidence, to bias the court against the defendants in the arms trial, was, and always was, class-A nonsense.
Doctoring the Book of Evidence could have had no effect whatsoever on the trial except to confuse the prosecuting lawyers and leave the prosecution open to an accusation of trying to hide evidence - an accusation which, if sustained, would have scuttled the trial.
It is contended that doctoring the Book of Evidence could have encouraged the District Court judge at the preliminary examination stage into sending the case forward for trial, when otherwise he might not have done so.
But is it remotely believable that the District judge would have done that given the clear prima facie evidence there was against each of the accused (unlike the case concerning Neil Blaney), even though the doctored bits might have obscured the extent to which this evidence was contested by other witnesses? The contention is simply silly.
Prime Time was wrong about that and for reasons of courtesy and fairness it should withdraw the allegation. Having restored its reputation as a centre for journalistic accomplishment, it can well afford an apology. But that Mr O'Malley would be in a position to sue successfully on account of what Prime Time reported? That's a different matter. And the reason is because what Mr O'Malley actually did was far worse.
Two weeks before the arms trial was due to commence, he had a secret meeting with one of the defendants, Charles Haughey. On retiring from that meeting, Mr O'Malley conveyed to Peter Berry, then secretary of the Department of Justice and one of the chief witnesses for the prosecution in the case against Mr Haughey, that Mr Haughey wanted to know whether Mr Berry could be induced, directed or persuaded into withdrawing his evidence against him (Mr Haughey).
Here was the then minister for justice appearing to connive in a bid to pervert the course of justice.
IT might be claimed on Mr O'Malley's behalf that he was merely relaying to Mr Berry what had transpired. If so it is surprising that he failed to inform the Garda, the attorney general or his mentor and close political ally, the then Taoiseach Jack Lynch, of the meeting or of what had been suggested.
Could it be that Mr O'Malley was keeping his options open, unsure who would emerge victorious from the debris of the arms trial - Charles Haughey or Jack Lynch?
Mr O'Malley has made a career since then of warning the public of the perfidy of Mr Haughey and his (Mr O'Malley's) claim to expertise on this has been the insights he obtained while minister for justice.
But if Mr Haughey were such a menace to the country, why would Mr O'Malley have flirted with him right at the moment of greatest danger, and right at the time when, as minister for justice, he had most insight into what Mr Haughey was about? More than that, why would he have given the impression of assisting Mr Haughey in what would have been his most serious depredation; the perversion of justice at the arms trial?
We have RTÉ to thank for not knowing Mr O'Malley's response to these questions. So keen were the makers of the awful documentary series on him over a year ago to present him in as flattering a mode as possible that nothing of potential embarrassment could be raised.And what thanks did RTÉ get? A threat of a libel action.
All this does not make Mr O'Malley a bad man; just that for once he behaved dishonourably and in a way that should have precluded him from bad-mouthing the person on whose behalf he appeared to seek to give such questionable assistance.
And he now wants to sue because his reputation is unfairly damaged by the suggestion that, in a more innocent way, he attempted to pervert justice!