Nine members of the Garda Emergency Response Unit called to give evidence to an Oireachtas sub-committee investigating the Abbeylara shooting are seeking to be exempted from giving testimony to the inquiry.
The application has been made on the grounds that their evidence might affect their capacity to detect crime in future.
The ERU was deployed at a 25-hour siege at Abbeylara on April 20th last year which culminated in its shooting dead of 27-year-old Mr John Carthy.
Details of the application emerged yesterday when their counsel, Mr John Rogers SC, sought an adjournment of the inquiry until the application had been dealt with by the secretary to the Government.
The application was made under Section 7 of the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses Act 1997.
Mr Rogers said if the secretary to the Government upheld their application, the ERU men would not have to give evidence. He argued that if this happened, they would not have an opportunity to rebut allegations made by witnesses if testimony continued to be taken.
He submitted there was a power of adjournment in the Act which he was asking the sub-committee to exercise. He said it provided for the committee to allow not fewer than 30 days to respond to a request such as his.
The sub-committee adjourned to consider the submission. Afterwards the chairman, Mr Sean Ardagh TD, said the subcommittee had given some consideration to the submissions made by Mr Rogers on the exemption applications.
However, their deliberations had not been completed and to respond fully to the points made, the sub-committee would adjourn to Monday. The subcommittee will meet in private session at 10 a.m. on Monday and will then give its decision.
Earlier Mr Rogers said it appeared amendments had been made to broaden the sub-committee's terms of reference since it began hearing evidence. He said this was not admissible and sought a copy of the amendment order. "The reality is there is a serious legal issue now in relation to the continuance of this committee," he said.
Mr Ardagh said this legal submission was based on "spurious nitty-gritty legalities". After an objection by Mr Rogers, he withdrew the word spurious.
"This attempt to put all the legalities into place is leading to a frustration and trying to put a spanner in the works of the good work that this committee is proceeding with," Mr Ardagh added.
Mr Rogers protested that his were entirely proper legal submissions.
After an adjournment Mr Ardagh said the committee was satisfied it had the powers to continue its work and the amendment orders would be furnished to counsel on Monday.