THERE WERE only two journalists – both from The Irish Times– in the High Court yesterday for the hearing that will lead to the effective nationalisation of Allied Irish Banks. They were the only observers in the public interest witnessing the State takeover of what was once Ireland's largest bank at a cost to the taxpayer of a further €3.7 billion. But they were asked to leave because the application was closed to the media.
This was a shameful approach by the Minister for Finance to a matter of extreme public interest, one of the biggest economic transactions ever undertaken by this State on behalf of taxpayers.
The Government said that there were issues of “extreme commercial sensitivity” at stake and this was what the judge, Ms Justice Maureen Clark, was told. The application was heard, unusually, in Court 19 of Aras Ui Dhalaigh, normally the location of family court hearings in camera. The judge agreed with counsel for the Government that under the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010, the journalists must leave.
That is the Act just signed by the President giving the Minister for Finance extraordinary powers to take over and impose quasi-martial law on banks. Articles 59 and 60 also give the Minister huge discretionary powers to silence the press, with the latter providing that: “The Court may order that any application under this Act, or any part of such an application, shall be heard otherwise than in public or may impose restrictions with regard to the disclosure in open court, publication or reporting of any material that might be commercially sensitive”.
This level of secrecy is entirely unsatisfactory in the case of AIB which has consistently underestimated its liabilities. And to find that the Minister is now prepared to go into a private hearing to cover up its latest position is utterly unacceptable to taxpayers.
David Barniville SC, for the Minister, said he wanted the application heard in camera on the grounds that it involved issues of “extreme commercial sensitivity”. He further argued that the issues already referred to in the media were not the particular issues involved in the application.
If that is the case, what were the issues requiring the taxpayer to effectively nationalise AIB? Should the taxpayer not know? Isn’t this legislation, as it was exercised yesterday, extremely anti-democratic? Why was AIB nationalised? What is it they don’t want us to know? What is being hidden from taxpayers under the now familiar guise of commercial sensitivity?