The legal big guns lie in wait for a doughty Lone Ranger

There are some features about the Flood tribunal which, by all accounts, make it different from any other.

Having just completed its first three days hearing public evidence in Dublin Castle, the adversarial nature of the proceedings is most striking. Some 30 of the biggest names in the Law Library are pitched actively against the chairman, Mr Justice Flood, his eight-member legal team, and the tribunal itself.

Furthermore, the clients of these 30 barristers deem it in their interests that the first witness at the tribunal, James Gogarty, should be challenged, at every possible turn, in his attempt to tell his story. The barristers are being paid sliding fees of £1,350 a day which, in time, will probably be paid by the taxpayer.

In addition to retaining teams of leading legal advisers, the two building companies which are the focus of Mr Gogarty's accusations, Bovale Developments Ltd, headed by brothers Mr Michael and Mr Thomas Bailey, and Joseph Murphy Structural Engineering (JMSE), are employing a second tier of public relations advocates.

Mr Pat Heneghan, who worked for Mr Larry Goodman during the beef tribunal - at a cost of £162,361 to the taxpayer - is retained by Bovale. Mr James Morrissey from one of the biggest PR firms, Fleishman Hillard Saunders, has been retained by JMSE.

Within that context, the Flood tribunal, which has been denigrated by various political and other interests for months, has got off to a reasonably good start. The man who was rubbished publicly for uttering "falsehoods" and being "vindictive" about his former employers has turned out to be a much better witness than expected. James Gogarty is on a mission to tell his story, and his story is about his efforts to get his pension from JMSE.

"I came here to the tribunal to get the truth, warts and all, and if I did wrong I am ready to take my place in the queue to pay for it. I am here warts and all. That's all I want." That's how he wound up his evidence on Thursday, taking a side-swipe at the £1,300 or £1,350-a-day barristers "for laughing at me".

Mr Gogarty is expected to reach the matters of public interest on Monday when he recounts the circumstances surrounding the payment of £30,000 - or £40,000 - to Mr Ray Burke in June 1989. As Mr Gogarty presents it, it is just part of the story about the procurement of his pension.

AS Mr Gogarty prepares to give evidence about his meeting with Mr Burke, then minister for industry, commerce and communications, it is worth recalling Mr Burke's account of the event.

He told the Dail on September 10th, 1997, that he was visited in his home by Mr Michael Bailey, who was well known to him as a Fianna Fail supporter, and "a Mr James Gogarty", during the 1989 general election campaign. He had not met Mr Gogarty previously but was introduced to him as a JMSE executive by Mr Bailey.

Mr Bailey told him JMSE wished to make a political contribution to him "and I received from him in good faith a sum of £30,000 as a totally unsolicited political contribution. At no time during our meeting were any favours sought or given".

Mr Burke also said the unsolicited political contribution was £30,000, not £80,000 as reported. The allegation that he received £40,000 from Mr Bailey or Bovale Developments Ltd "on that or any other occasion is false".

During the Dail question-and-answer session, ail, Mr Burke said the money was entirely in cash in two envelopes. He had no recollection of the denominations of the money. There was a very brief discussion. He never received a larger contribution. The question of whether the £30,000 was intended for his personal use or as a donation to Fianna Fail "did not arise".

Mr Burke was adamant about the persons who attended the meeting in his house, Briargate, in Swords.

"There were three persons present when I received the contribution from Mr Gogarty - Mr Gogarty, Mr Bailey and myself - and not five as reported. There was one JMSE executive present, Mr Gogarty, and not two or three as variously reported."

He later produced letters from the solicitors for Mr Joseph Murphy and Mr Michael Bailey, sought by him in preparation for his statement of claim in defamation proceedings against Mr Gogarty, confirming that Mr Joseph Murphy jnr was not present at the meeting in his home. Mr Bailey was present throughout the meeting.

In view of subsequent political events, it is also worth recalling the question put by Mr Tom Gildea, the Donegal Independent TD, to Mr Burke.

"Did the Minister receive any monies when he granted MMDS licences during his period as minister for communications under the Haughey-led government?" The answer was: "No".

The public standing of the Flood tribunal will be determined by two issues in the coming days and weeks: how Mr Gogarty withstands cross-examinations on these events and whether his many detractors can furnish a sustainable explanation for the payment of £30,000 or more.