The leader of Democratic Left, Mr Proinsias De Rossa, told the High Court yesterday he was in court for the third time to get his name cleared and he was determined to see it through to the end. In his evidence, Mr De Rossa said the first he knew of the Sunday Independent article was when a friend rang him that morning. When he bought and read it, he was shocked at the contents.
It was clear the article was about him and it was accusing him of being a crook and a criminal; that he was not suitable to be a representative of the people of the country; and that he was not a decent person.
The article accused him of being a criminal of the most appalling kind and it was really quite sickening.
Mr De Rossa said his first thought was what the effect would be on his family and on him as a person. He could not see how, if he left it be, his family could walk the streets and meet friends when people would be wondering was their father a crook.
His counsel, Mr Sean Ryan SC, asked him in detail about the article. Mr De Rossa said he immediately thought of all the box collections he had done on behalf of the party over the years and the contribution he had made to the party.
To say very explicitly in the article that he had benefited in some way from crime smacked of the most appalling thing a politician could possibly be accused of.
The article accused him of being involved in a kind of virtual oppression of the people, of abusing them, and that he was involved in drugs, prostitution rackets, armed robberies, which went against everything he believed in.
All his life he had worked for people not to be discriminated against and not to be abused.
"I was just stuck to the chair reading it. I couldn't believe it. I couldn't believe that somebody could have that view of me," Mr De Rossa said.
When asked about the reference to drugs and prostitution, he said it was clearly shocking. Commenting on the reference to "special activities", Mr De Rossa said it was very clear that, in the ordinary sense, a reader would say that he was a person who benefited from crime.
Mr Ryan asked about the paragraph: "There is no doubt that elements of Prionsias De Rossa's WP were involved in `special activities'. What remains unproven is whether de Rossa knew about the source of the party's funds. There is evidence, strengthened by revelations in The Irish Times this week, that de Rossa was aware of what was going on."
Mr De Rossa said: "It's quite simply not true. Again, it was an attempt to link me to criminal activity and make out I'm a criminal."
Extraordinarily, Mr Eamon Dunphy talked about evidence which he did not produce. He talked about revelations in The Irish Times but did not say what he was talking about. Where was the evidence? It simply made allegations against him which the Sunday Independent refused to withdraw.
On another reference in the article to giving Mr De Rossa the "benefit of the doubt", Mr De Rossa said it was one of the things which particularly annoyed him because not only was the article accusing him of being a criminal, it was giving what criminals were offered when they were believed guilty.
O.J. Simpson was given the benefit of the doubt and he did not think there was a single person who did not believe O.J. Simpson was guilty of murdering his wife.
"I don't think Eamon Dunphy is entitled to treat me that way and take my good name that way," he said.
The article referred to the DL's "recent conversion to decency". Mr De Rossa said he had all along been a decent and honest person and was not recently converted to it. It was unacceptable.
Another part of the article was an attempt to connect him with the most inhuman crimes in Eastern Europe and Russia. He had no time for that kind of thing. If ever he was in connection with groups in those countries, it was to argue against the inhumanity of man against the masses. To claim he somehow supported the execution of people was a total subversion of the truth.
Mr Dunphy was entitled to say he was a bad politician or Minister but was not entitled to say he was a criminal. What was wrong with the way Mr Dunphy put it was that he (witness) was not suitable for government because of his connection with criminal activities.
"There was an attempt made to destroy me personally and prevent me from being part of a government," he said. He did not accept that any newspaper or journalist should be free to do that.
"The Sunday Independent was being reckless with my reputation as a decent human being." That was what galled him most, that a newspaper would publish that he was not a decent person.
"That is why I'm here in court for the third time to get my name cleared," he said. He had asked for a retraction, an apology and a contribution to charity. He had no interest in money. The newspaper absolutely refused to do that. It said he could have a right to reply but he refused as that was grossly inadequate.
"I want my name cleared so my family and friends can get on with their lives without this shadow hanging over me," Mr De Rossa said. "I'm absolutely determined to see it through to the end."