Builder belatedly discovers many `errors'

It seems only yesterday that Joe McGowan came to the tribunal to wax lyrical about the glittering dinner parties they used to…

It seems only yesterday that Joe McGowan came to the tribunal to wax lyrical about the glittering dinner parties they used to hold for Ray Burke at Cheltenham and Ascot. You could almost see the light of the after-dinner cigars as "the drink flowed like a river" and the guests queued up to show their generosity to the then Fianna Fail minister.

But it was a very different Joe McGowan that gave evidence yesterday, with a very different story to tell. It isn't often that you see a millionaire businessman eat large doses of humble pie, but on my count Mr McGowan apologised over 20 times for the "errors" in his evidence last year.

Like his business partner Mr Tom Brennan and Mr Burke, Mr McGowan has some explaining to do. Since their last appearances, the tribunal has established - no thanks to the three men involved - that the money that flowed Mr Burke's way came not from fundraising but through a complex and secretive web of offshore transactions.

However, of the three, Mr McGowan is arguably in the deepest trouble, because his evidence last year was highly specific. His answers to many questions were succinct - and incorrect, it emerged yesterday.

READ MORE

"Did you have any accounts outside the jurisdiction?" he was asked last year. "Not at any time," he replied. But Mr McGowan, we now know, had accounts or companies in London and Jersey, at the very least.

Were monies contributed to Mr Burke outside Ireland, apart from the Ascot and Cheltenham fundraisers? "I have no idea," he replied.

"Did you pay money to Mr Burke offshore?" "Certainly not," Mr McGowan had replied. Yesterday he conceded that these answers, and a few more, were "errors".

A more plausible explanation put forward by tribunal lawyers was that he knew the tribunal was ignorant of these offshore activities at the time.

Mr McGowan maintains the fundraising activity did happen - if he didn't, his evidence of last year would clearly be a lie.

The question now is: how long is the tribunal prepared to put up with the contradictions in his evidence?