Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's counsel yesterday accused the Mahon tribunal counsel of "pushing a particular agenda" and not being "even handed". Alison Healyand Martin Wallreport.
The heated exchanges led to Judge Alan Mahon warning Mr Ahern's barrister about his "offensive" words.
The row erupted after Des O'Neill SC, for the tribunal, returned to question AIB bank official Jim McNamara after he had been cross-examined by Colm Ó hOisín SC, for Mr Ahern.
Mr Ó hOisín maintained that there was nothing surprising in Mr Ahern asking the bank if three transactions involved foreign currency. He said this was triggered by a letter sent by the tribunal.
However, Mr O'Neill said there was "no reference whatsoever" to foreign transactions in that letter and there was nothing in the letter that Mr Ahern had not already known.
Mr Ó hOisín objected to Mr O'Neill's intervention saying he was being adversarial. "What is the role of tribunal counsel here?" he asked. "Is it to try and get the last word every single time, to try and push a particular agenda?"
Mr Ó hOisín accused Mr O'Neill of trying to undo the cross-examination and to ask "loaded questions".
"He is pushing a particular point of view," Mr Ó hOisín said. When Mr Ó hOisín referred to "tactics" being used, Judge Mahon said: "You should just be careful about the words that you use because they are particularly offensive to us, the members of the tribunal, that there is a certain agenda being followed here."
Judge Gerald Keys added: "Offensive, and I reject them out of hand."
Mr O'Neill said if Mr Ó hOisín was suggesting that he was acting improperly, "I reject that absolutely". He claimed that counsel for the tribunal was being targeted as a "sideshow" and distraction to avoid dealing with the issues.
Conor Maguire SC, for the Taoiseach, sought to have reference to "the supposed dollar transaction" involving Mr Ahern removed from the record of the opening statement of the current module.
Alternatively he proposed that the record be amended to include contrary evidence which he maintained had been in the possession of the tribunal. Mr Maguire said the evidence of AIB officials had not been referred to, including that of one witness who said, on four occasions, that there had been no dollar transactions.
He said that the hypothesis that the Taoiseach dealt in dollars was not mathematically possible and was not mathematically sound.
Judge Mahon said that it had not considered the evidence yet and the content of an opening statement and the eventual outcome "may well be very different in many instances".
Meanwhile, Mr McNamara of AIB agreed with Richard Nesbitt SC, for AIB, that he was not "attempting to subvert" the giving of information to the tribunal.
Mr Nesbitt said there had been an "inference" running through the questions from tribunal counsel "that you have effectively attempted to subvert the obtaining and giving of information".
The issue arose after Mr McNamara had told the tribunal in June 2006 that he could not recall any substantial cash transactions involving Ms Larkin in the 1990s, but the tribunal uncovered a letter from Mr McNamara to Ms Larkin detailing 18 transactions.
Mr McNamara said he was not trying to hide anything. "If I was trying to hide something, I wouldn't have put a copy in the [ bank] file."