Ahern statement (full text)
Chairman and members of the tribunal, I wish if I may to say something before commencing my evidence. I totally and utterly reject the false allegations made by Mr Gilmartin that I was a recipient of any monies from Mr O'Callaghan, directly or indirectly relating to Quarryvale or anyone else, or in any circumstances or for any purpose whatsoever.
Mr Gilmartin's allegations are not based on anything other than hearsay. He alleges he was told by Mr O'Callaghan that I received certain monies. On the basis of those false allegations I have been subject to an unprecedented attack on my integrity and honesty.
I have been involved in politics for over 30 years. I have never during that period before been offered any money from anyone in exchange for political or other favours or taken money for that purpose. I have endeavoured to serve the country to my utmost. I have no interest in personal gain or benefit and never had.
The false allegations against me and the leaking of the tribunal documents have been calculated to do me enormous personal and political damage. As the tribunal is aware, a number of wholly false allegations, some based on forgeries - that I had a foreign account in the Deutsche Bank in Mauritius, that I had £15 million in the Bank of Ireland in Jersey that was channelled to AIB O'Connell Street and that I got a £50,000 cheque from Owen O'Callaghan in 1989 - have been made against me and have been shown to be untrue, and it's clear that somebody is intent on doing me maximum damage.
On the supposed $45,000 lodgement on 5th December, 1994, there are a number of points I want to make clear from the outset. These are as follows: The allegation that I received monies from Mr Owen O'Callaghan is baseless. The tribunal in its opening [ statement] properly and fairly acknowledged that there is no evidence of the payment by Owen O'Callaghan of any such monies to me.
After 10 years of inquiries there is no evidence I did anything wrong or engaged in any corrupt practice. This is not surprising as I never took a bribe or abused the public trust in the discharge of my duties as a politician. After 10 years of inquiry by this tribunal not one person has ever stated to this tribunal that I was paid a sum of $45,000 or any similar sum of US dollars. Not one bank official in AIB O'Connell Street recalls a $45,000 cash lodgement.
There never was, so, a $45,000 lodgement. As Philip Murphy of that branch [ of AIB] said publicly and privately to the tribunal, there were no dollars. I never received a sum of $45,000 or any similar sum in my life. The sum of $45,000 or any other similar sum of US dollars has never been lodged to any of my accounts.
The first occasion I became aware of this was when the tribunal considered the possibility that I received the sum of $45,000 was at a private session which I attended with the tribunal on 5th April, 2007. I emphatically rejected the suggestion on that occasion and do so again here today.
At the tribunal's request, I attended a private session which was referred to as a voluntary process. I was not obliged as a matter of law to attend that session. However, in order to assist the tribunal in its inquiries, I agreed to make myself available for this private session. The letter of 2nd March, 2007 from the tribunal inviting me to a private session referred to five lodgements in respect of which they sought my assistance.
The supposed dollars lodgement was not one of these five lodgements. I thus received no advance warning or notice that the tribunal were then entering the possibility that the lodgement of 5th December, 1994 might have been the sum of $45,000. If I had been so aware prior to a meeting this suggestion would have enabled me, as I have now done, to retain my own independent expert, analyse the banking documentation and confirm my statements that there was no $45,000 lodgement.
My banking expert, chairman, is Paddy Strong, the former chief operating officer of Bank of Ireland Corporate Banking, and he has now confirmed to me, having considered all the banking evidence and examined all the banking documentation, that the evidence does not substantiate a lodgement of $45,000.
Having been confronted for the first time on 5th April of this year with the suggestion of $45,000 [ I knew] as a matter of moral certainty that there were no dollars. The allegation once floated, I realised, it could be destructive to me and to my party. For reasons that [ we] do not need to explore, the tribunal, even though its inquiries were then ongoing, decided to circulate the transcripts of the private sessions and thereby the details of the questioning concerning the $45,000. This was leaked to the media and was an explosive suggestion raised on the eve of the general election. I was then forced to respond to this scenario.
Since that meeting of 5th April, the tribunal continued to interview witnesses from the bank to obtain discovery. Much information, documentation is now coming to light, which when carefully analysed shows that there was no lodgement of $45,000. The tribunal lawyers have only reached a supposition of a $45,000 figure by applying wrong and notional exchange rates and by assuming that AIB bank officials breached standard banking procedures.
The monies, chairman, Michael Wall gave me at that meeting were kept in my safe and, because I was travelling to Brussels on official business, were then lodged by Celia Larkin the following Monday, 5th December, 1994, to the relevant AIB account in O'Connell Street. There is no mystery about this, this is what happened, the position is clear. No dollars were ever received by me, no dollars were lodged. Whatever monies presented by Mick Wall, whether sterling or a combination of sterling and Irish, and whatever amounts, were the sums lodged in the account on 5th December, 1994, they were the monies I left for Celia Larkin to lodge to her account on 5th December, 1994. And that is what she lodged.
It is a fact that the combination of the sterling and punt gives the figure actually lodged to Celia Larkin's account. I seek no more, chairman, from the tribunal than I be treated like other witnesses and any other citizen in a republic.
I seek no preference or demand no privileges. There were no dollars, there were never dollars, it's a complete red herring. The lodgement of the £25,000 sterling on 11th October, 1994, it was not £25,000 sterling, but it did include a sterling sum of about £8,000. The report submitted to this tribunal on my behalf by Des Peelo on the 20th April, 2006 so stated.
It states that the lodgement was a combination of Irish punts and sterling. It stated that the sterling amount was circa £8,000. At no stage have I ever asserted that the sterling portion of this lodgement was exactly £8,000. Hence calculations relating to this lodgement must be based on this sterling element not being exactly £8,000.
I also make clear that the balance was an Irish currency sum. The sterling amount that was lodged when monies raised at a dinner in Manchester, I did not count the exact amount of sterling so received, but the monies as so received were lodged to my account. There was also an Irish punt part of the lodgement; I will shortly address that portion of the lodgement.
The supposition that the lodgement on 11th October is all sterling is wrong. As I have already told the tribunal repeatedly, part of this lodgement was sterling. There are a number of points I wish to make and they are the following, chairman: It is only when one applies the wrong AIB rate for 11th October 1994 that one gets a figure of £25,000 sterling.
As I understand the situation, AIB had three set rates on the day. The larger the amount changed by the client, the better the rate given. The rates were set by reference to a purchase of AIB sterling up to a value of £500, a purchase of AIB sterling up to a value of £2,500 and a purchase of AIB sterling up to a value of £10,000. The three set rates were programmed into a foreign exchange calculator called a Forde Money Changer.
Any purchase over £10,000 required the teller to obtain an individual rate from AIB foreign exchange currency dealers. For the teller to apply the rate for up to £2,500 for the exchange of £25,000 sterling he would have to manually override the machine to input the wrong rate. For the sums even to add up in the first place it would mean that AIB personnel breached their own internal rules and applied the second worst available exchange to a good customer who happened to be a minister for finance. So not only is the allegation wrong, its practice is unbelievable.
I will now explain why I am certain that the lodgement included a substantial sum of Irish pounds, chairman. A number of my friends in light of my then situation and the fact that I was emerging from a difficult personal matrimonial scenario collected monies to assist me with my then situation. This I believe amounted to £16,500. I was handed these monies sometime prior to 10th October and probably in September. They were lodged on 11th October, 1994.
There are a number of features about these funds that merit mentioning. They are as follows: The sums were collected in cash from a number of personal friends and presented to me by Dermot Carew of the Beaumont House. I did not count these monies that were given to me by my friends, I accepted and thus I believed that the amount was £16,500, and that is what I have told that it amounted to. The sum of money was stored in the safe in St Luke's before being lodged. I cannot at this point in time state precisely how long it remained in the safe nor can I say with mathematical precision how much Irish cash was then lodged. It is likely that the cash sum in my safe was later added to my other cash [ and] that I used some of the accumulated cash for routine expenses.
This alone would account for a non-rounded Irish punt sum being lodged to my account on 11th October. Each of my friends who gave this money to me have so acknowledged in writing. I have returned by way of cheque the monies plus interest to each of my friends. Each of my friends has acknowledged in writing receipt of these cheques, each of these friends have donated the monies so returned to them to a charity associated with my wife, Ms Miriam Ahern.
Again, I am informed by the banking expert that I have retained that there are a number of combinations of Irish and sterling which are about the same as the Irish and sterling cash sums and I believe were received and which amount to the Irish punt value of the lodgements of 11th October. These are simple mathematical facts.
After nearly 13 years, I do not recall making the specific lodgement. All that I can state is the funds were lodged to my account and that these funds included a combination of sterling and Irish punts from the sources identified above. I do not believe that anyone could expect of me a precise recollection to the nearest sterling or punt for the composition of the lodgement.
Converting of the £30,000 sterling: I converted Irish punt into sterling, I did that for the reasons and the contexts to which I refer. I think it is important to describe the context whereby there were financial transactions between myself and Mick Wall. They explain why it was in Irish cash it was converted into sterling.
The position can be summarised as follows: In 1994, Mick Wall was intending to purchase a residence in Ireland for his own use. He was setting up a business in Ireland, [ and] 44 Beresford was identified as a convenient residence. I entered into an arrangement with him whereby I would rent the property from him with an option to purchase and he would stay there when he required.
In fact, he stayed there 10 to 20 times while I rented from him, and indeed I purchased Beresford from him in 1997. I was anxious to have a residence at the time I became taoiseach, as was then expected within a short period of time. Mick Wall paid a deposit on the property.
As works were to be carried out on the house he and I agreed the distribution of those costs. He made this contribution by way of a cash sum, given to me in St Luke's on 3rd December, 1994; the sum was then lodged on 5th December, 1994.
Having gone from a situation where I was being viewed as a taoiseach-elect and the leader of Fianna Fáil in government, I went in a short space of time to being a leader of Fianna Fáil in opposition. My circumstances were changing radically and fundamentally over a very short period of time. Having suffered a disappointment of not being elected taoiseach in strained and unexpected circumstances, the urgency of proceeding with the arrangement in respect of Beresford was removed; indeed I changed my mind about proceeding with the arrangement with Wall in relation to Beresford. During the period after I decided that I was not proceeding with the arrangement with Mick Wall I looked at a number of other houses which I considered purchasing. I looked at a number of houses in the Beresford Estate/Griffith Avenue area at that time.
Because I'd changed my mind about proceeding with 44 Beresford, and was now actively looking at acquiring a different property, I decided that I should return Mick Wall's contribution to him. In that context part of the £50,000 that was withdrawn on 19th January for its then intended use in refurbishment of the house was actually used to purchase sterling with the intention of returning it to Mick Wall in light of my then change of mind. Eventually, I decided I would not acquire any other house. I recall that after Mick Wall was injured in a car accident, Celia Larkin and I visited him in Manchester. During the visit we discussed the position in relation to Beresford and that we would proceed with the conservatory and refurbishment work. I had thus reverted to the original arrangement with Mick Wall, hence the return of Mick Wall's contribution did not take place. Thereafter, some of the converted sterling was used for the original purpose intended in respect of the contribution that he gave me on 3rd December on costs related to Beresford.
So in summary of this issue I am clear that I purchased sterling approximately £30,000 at some point in early 1995 in order to give that money to Mick Wall. My inquiries to ascertain precisely when and where this occurred are ongoing. I am now being asked, chairman, to remember precise details of transactions and the precise amount of foreign currency involved in those transactions approximately 13 years after the event. Quite frankly, I cannot remember all the details at this remove.
Those transactions took place at a time of particular personal turmoil and upset for me and at a time when I was simultaneously attempting to discharge onerous public and party duties.
All I can do is recount the circumstances to the best of my knowledge. The years of 1994 and 1995 were periods not only of great personal change but significant demands on my time and energy as I sought to rebuild a then deflated Fianna Fáil party after we left government in late 1994. My own personal affairs were subordinated to those of reorganising and re-energising the Fianna Fáil party. It is thus not surprising that I cannot be specific or precise in my recollection. However, I am certain, as is clear from the context set out herein, that the source of the funds used to generate the sterling sums for payment to Mick Wall was the £50,000 withdrawn from the AIB O'Connell Street.
In conclusion, chairman, as the tribunal is aware, the persons identified as giving me these monies have confirmed that they did so. I am in the totally unenviable and unfair position of having to defend my honesty and integrity where there is no evidence whatsoever to support Mr Gilmartin's allegations and when, in truth, I am being criticised for not being able to provide precise details relating to payments confirmed by those other people so long after the event. I had understood that the tribunal was inquiring into the allegation that I had received Irish punt sums from Owen O'Callaghan; as has been properly and rightly pointed out by tribunal counsel in the opening statement, there are no documents or evidence to establish such a payment, moreover there is simply no evidence that I did anything to confer benefit directly or indirectly on Owen O'Callaghan.
That is so because it never happened. I did not accept a bribe. I did not do anything for Owen O'Callaghan. I have done nothing improper. I have done no wrong and wronged no one.
I am very grateful, chairman, for you allowing me to make that statement.