As many questions as answers remain in GSOC controversy
Analysis: When you remove all the noise that four questions have not been addressed, writes Harry McGee, Political Correspondent
The Garda Ombudsman Commission Office on Dublin’s Upper Abbey Street, Dublin 1. Photograph: Collins.
Various Government figures said earlier that they hope to draw a line under the controversy surrounding alleged surveillance of the Garda Síochána Ombdudsman Commission Office off Capel Street in Dublin 7.
That is not exactly an easy task and the opposition is baying for an independent inquiry. It is unclear if today’s decision to appoint a retired judge to examine the debacle will satisfy them.
The iciness between GSOC and An Garda Síochána seems to be of the permafrost variety rather than of a thawable nature. There is a Minister for Justice who has never knowingly used reverse gear. And not only are people still searching for answers, there is also a lot of disagreement on what the actual questions are.
A two-day debate will commence in the Dáil tonight on a Sinn Féin motion calling for an independent inquiry. The Bill will be introduced by Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, the party’s justice spokesman who is also chair of the Oireachtas oversight committee. The Government’s response will be given by Shatter, who will also be appearing before Mac Lochlainn’s committee tomorrow. So unless the Minister for Justice acts against type – his obstinate nature – the ongoing row will dominate the political agenda over the next two days.
Separately, Fianna Fáil is launching a Bill this afternoon calling for the powers of GSOC to be strengthened.
When you remove all the noise that has been generated by supporters of the Garda Síochána in the media over the past week, there are four questions of a fundamental nature that remain unanswered.
- The first: Was the GSOC office bugged?
- The second: If it was, who bugged it?
- The third: Why did GSOC chairman Simon O’Brien decide not to inform Alan Shatter?
- The fourth: Are there deficits in the structures or operations of GSOC, or in the legislation that set it up, that have been unearthed by the controversy?
There are still so many questions that have been left unanswered and it is debatable if any independent inquiry – no matter how robust – could get to the bottom of them.
What is certain is that much more specific knowledge about each of the three separate ‘anomalies’ needs to be put in the public domain. The Irish Independent this morning ran a report that seemed to throw cold water on the “potential threats”. The reports contended a wifi network in an Insomnia coffee house in the same building as GSOC can explain one of the “anomalies”. There was also a suggestion that the unknown UK network may have been triggered by the mobile phones of employees of Verrimus, the UK security company hired to conduct the security sweeps. Verrimus quickly responded on Twitter this morning. Its point was that the actual wifi network (bitbuzz) the device in the GSOC office connected to wasn’t the important point. What was important is that the device should not have been connecting to any device outside the GSOC offices.