The Democratic Left leader, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, accepted in the High Court yesterday that Mr Sean Garland, former general secretary and treasurer of the Workers Party, had been willing to lie to him about requesting funds from Moscow, had deceived the party and acted secretly.
Mr De Rossa was being cross-examined on the third day of his libel action against the Sunday Independent concerning an article in the newspaper by Eamon Dunphy on December 13th, 1992.
It is claimed by Mr De Rossa that the words meant and were understood to mean that he had confessed to special activities on the part of a political party of which he had been leader; that he was aware of the special activities and that they were criminal in nature. The defence admits it published the article but denies it was published falsely or maliciously. It also admits the words meant Mr De Rossa had been leader of a party which had previously received funds raised as a result of criminal activities and that there had been public comment on the letter, signed, but not knowingly signed, by him, which appeared to refer to such activities. In that sense, the words complained of were true and accurate.
Mr Michael McDowell SC, for the defence, asked Mr De Rossa about reports around the end of 1991 that the WP had received funds from the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. He asked if Mr Garland had ever indicated to him that he had made a request for monies from the Soviet Union.
Mr De Rossa said Mr Garland had not. Mr Garland had maintained that position up to an Ardcomhairle meeting on January 11th, 1992. One of the questions raised by a member was whether money had been sought from the Soviet Union and Mr Garland volunteered the information that he had, in fact, sought funds but had never received any.
Mr McDowell asked if that meant Mr Garland had lied to him up until the reports were published.
Mr De Rossa said Mr Garland made it clear that he had never received any money.
Mr McDowell referred to an interview in The Irish Times by Deaglan de Breadun with Mr De Rossa, published on January 4th, 1992, in which he had denied recent reports that the WP had received money from the CPSU.
The report also stated that the Ardchomhairle or central executive committee of the WP would be deciding soon whether it would send Mr De Rossa or another representative to Moscow to look into the matter.
Mr McDowell asked if Mr Garland had grossly deceived Mr De Rossa if he kept back the fact that he had requested money.
Mr De Rossa said the impression he was left with was that there was no money sought and none received. It came as a shock to the meeting when Mr Garland said he had sought money but never received any. Mr McDowell put it to him that it might have been that at that time Mr Garland thought he would be exposed as a liar after seeing the article if the document in Moscow was brought to light.
Mr De Rossa said it had been decided earlier at the meeting not to go to Moscow and to get on with reconstituting the WP. It had been decided to approach the Russian embassy to see it they could help. It was not done by him, it may have been done by WP after he left two months later.
Asked if it was not a monstrous deception that Mr Garland perpetrated on him, Mr De Rossa said that what Mr Garland did was to seek money without authorisation from the WP. He did not go before the Ardchomhairle with the proposal. Mr De Rossa said he felt if Mr Garland had done so, no request would ever have been made.
Asked if that was very serious misbehaviour by the general secretary of any party, Mr De Rossa said it was.
Mr McDowell put it to him that it was very serious to allow him to go public (in the article) when there was likely to be evidence in Moscow of a request.
Mr De Rossa said he had no knowledge that there would have been any such evidence. In newspaper reports there was speculation about the payment but to his knowledge no such money was ever received. There was nothing in the accounts, and certainly he never requested money.
He had asked Mr Garland if he knew, and he said no. Then, a week after the interview, Mr Garland admitted at an Ardchomhairle meeting that he had sought money but had not received any.
Mr De Rossa said the question at the time was not whether a request had been made but whether the money had been paid. Mr McDowell said Mr Garland knew that Mr De Rossa was talking in public about setting in train an inquiry and that he could be exposed.
Mr De Rossa said the topic of the proposal from him to reconstitute the WP had taken up 90 percent of the meeting.
Mr McDowell suggested that Mr Garland was prepared to lie to Mr De Rossa until such time as Mr Garland knew that the game was likely to be up about the request. Mr De Rossa said that would seem to be the case.
Mr De Rossa said he was not there to defend Sean Garland, or to do him down for that matter. He was there to defend his own character.
Earlier, Mr De Rossa said there would have been nothing wrong with the WP getting funds from the CPSU in 1990/91 as long as there were "no strings attached".
He added that that never arose. On the reports that money had been paid to a number of parties in Western Europe, including the WP in Ireland, he said he would not necessarily have thought there was anything untoward or wrong about that but "I would not have been keen on the idea".
Pressed on whether it would have been damaging to be seen to accept funds from the CPSU, Mr De Rossa said: "I am not saying it would not be damaging."
Mr De Rossa said that some distrust had developed between himself and Mr Garland before the party split in the early 1990s.
He said that up to the time the reconstitution and reconstruction of the party was debated, Mr Garland was as keen to reform the party as he was, but then Mr Garland seemed to change his mind.
Asked if he was saying that Mr Garland was saying one thing to his face and another behind his back, Mr De Rossa said: "Yes."
At one point, a meeting was organised in his own constituency to which he was not invited and about which he was not informed. It was called to argue against his line. He presumed Mr Garland or some of his supporters in the constituency had organised it. That seemed to be a breach of trust.
Another time, in the course of a private conversation, Mr Garland said it was important to maintain the unity of the party. At the same time, Mr Garland was expressing the view to others that the party would have to split and that they would have to expel the TDs as he felt they were becoming too independent.
His working relationship with Mr Garland until the reconstitution of the party was debated was cordial and friendly but they were not bosom buddies, nor drinking pals. He had seen him once a month or once a week.