In his article published in the Sunday Independent, Taoiseach Bertie Aherndefended his integrity
The past number of weeks have been difficult and tiring, but they have also been very important weeks for me. After almost eight years of leaks, allegations and accusations I faced the lawyers for the Mahon tribunal. My hours in the witness box have made it clear to the whole country that there is not a shred of evidence that I ever received an improper payment from Owen O'Callaghan. The fact is that I never got an improper payment from anyone.
The reason why the tribunal is investigating me is that Tom Gilmartin has made a series of lurid, baseless and ever-changing allegations.
According to different yarns spun about me by Mr Gilmartin, I allegedly received payments of large sums of money from Owen O'Callaghan.
All of these stories are untrue. They are as untrue as the lies told about me by Denis "Starry" O'Brien - who also claimed I got money from Owen O'Callaghan - which were proved to be untrue in the Circuit Court.
In investigating these allegations, the tribunal pored over tens of thousands of pages of documentation. Not one of those pages discloses any payments to me from Owen O'Callaghan - for the simple reason that there never was any such payment.
In the course of these investigations, I gave to the tribunal documents which indicated a number of sizeable lodgements into my bank accounts. The tribunal asked me to explain those lodgements.
The fundamental root of each of these lodgements was the conclusion of my marital separation and my efforts to put my life back in order after that separation. I have explained these matters to the Irish people and I think people understand the situation I was in which led to the actions I took.
To many, the way I dealt with these issues seems unorthodox. That is because my lifestyle in that difficult period was unorthodox. Many who have gone through the trauma of marital separation and legal proceedings will understand the position I was in. Mine was not a perfect life, nor a perfect family and matrimonial environment, but as I emerged from that period I was assisted by friends who I later repaid in full with interest. My situation was normalised over a short period after the conclusion of my separation.
The tribunal has closely examined a sequence of events which occurred over two years, beginning immediately after the conclusion of my separation. Anyone who takes the time to read the transcripts of my evidence will see that I explained my position in relation to all of those matters.
Unfortunately, the nature of media reporting is such that it was only possible to put selected extracts of my evidence into the public domain. This has led to confusion and misunderstandings, in some cases, about what was actually said.
For example, those in the media who seek to sensationalise the events of recent weeks - and those in the opposition parties who seek to cynically exploit them - have tried to make a play on certain numerical calculations in order to bamboozle people into believing that something sinister has happened. One suggestion is that dollars were lodged into Celia Larkin's bank account.
The simple fact of the matter about the lodgement of £30,000 or so of Michael Wall's money - which was provision Mr Wall was making for expenditure on his own house - is that this was not dollars, it was sterling with a small amount of punts.
It is not $45,000. Nor is it 71.5 million Italian lira or 237,700 French francs. The amount lodged to the account using that day's exchange rates equates to exactly those sums but nobody, I hope, is stating that I received either of those currencies - just as I did not receive dollars.
I have retained an independent banking expert and I look forward to his testimony. Having analysed the documentation from the branch and from the remit room in AIB headquarters, this expert has concluded that the evidence does not substantiate a lodgment of $45,000. Contrary to some media reports, this expert's evidence is as valid as it ever was and will, when given, clear up much of the confusion caused in recent weeks.
It is unfortunate that the sequence of events which took place in relation to my house was complicated. This was a result of a number of changes in my plans over a period of months in 1994 and 1995.
The complicated facts have given some people the opportunity to suggest that there is a sinister element to these facts. However, the reality is quite simple and innocent: Michael Wall and I both spent money on a house which he owned and I rented and I subsequently purchased. There is nothing at all wrong with that.
In dealing with the tribunal, I have been as frank and forthright as I could possibly be, given the passage of more than a decade since these events transpired. It is important to remember that the period of time under consideration was a difficult one in my life. I was busy attending to the many obligations of holding office as minister for finance and then as leader of Fianna Fáil.
If I am to be criticised for not having a precise and clear recollection of all matters of detail some 12 and 13 years on, so be it. I have done my best in recalling these events. I have given my evidence as honestly as I can and to the best of my ability. The human mind makes mistakes of recollection, forgets details and mingles events. That is life.
Everyone has experience of forgetting matters or of having only partial recollection of important events in their lives. Through the process of discussion and the revelation of other facts, new memories and recollections come to the fore. To err in one's recollection is normal and honest. The essential facts of the transactions which have been the subject of the tribunal inquiries are clear. The expenditure of the money in respect of the refurbishment and purchase of my house have also been corroborated.
I don't propose to dwell in detail on the Dáil debate that arose this week out of the Opposition's call for me to resign. They did not seek this in October, or indeed last May, when I put myself and my party before the people. This debate was motivated by political opportunism.
It showed that Fine Gael cannot get its maths right. I only got money from two groups of friends and the event in Manchester. I lodged £22,500 in December 1993 and £24,838.49 in October 1994. These are the only monies I got from third parties.
All of the other sums referred to at the Mahon tribunal are my personal savings and Michael Wall's own money. Fine Gael is involved in double-counting and deliberate distortion of the figures. What I got is not - as Fine Gael alleges - the equivalent of €300,000 in today's terms, or anything remotely near it.
I also want to say I was saddened by the contributions of one or two new Fine Gael TDs who profess to be interested in cleaning up politics but whose remarks were straight out of the sewer. They used their speaking time for a discharge of arrogance and heated juvenile point-scoring.
There was even an attempt to denigrate Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, though Ireland's advance has been greatly assisted by the friendship of these great statesmen. Those comments have coarsened political debate in Ireland and insulted good friends of this country.
In unparalleled fashion, they dragged the mock sophistication of freshers' week into the Dáil chamber. With time and the slow onset of wit and maturity, these deputies will be shocked by their performance.
Ultimately, it will be for Fine Gael's leadership to rein in the coarse interventions of their new members, unless of course that party is happy for them to persist with these new low standards in our national parliament.
I was disappointed by cheap shots that I was using my separation to elicit public sympathy. I have mentioned it - and reluctantly so - because it is an indispensable factor in understanding why my financial affairs were for a period so difficult.
The lodgements under consideration by the Mahon tribunal started within 30 days of the ending of my matrimonial proceedings, were completed within a two-year period and are the only lodgements being examined in a career of more than 30 years in politics. These are the facts.
I know there are people who manage to go through a trauma like this relatively unscathed. But they too are in a minority. Anyone who has been through a similar situation will have some understanding of my position.
I had hoped that those who have been lucky enough not to have had this experience would also get the point.
For those who do not, let me say that going through a separation is a very complex and fraught ordeal.
I know there are many people who will already have concluded for themselves that this is the logical explanation for the state of my financial affairs during the period immediately after my legal separation. I know also that there are some who will be so aware but will choose to ignore the truth and, instead, seek some alternative, disreputable motivation.
I know too that there is a substantial number of people for whom my lengthy tribunal appearances did little but add to the confusion, though I think anyone who has taken the trouble to sit down and read the full transcript of my evidence will agree they have a greater understanding of the situation.
I believe that any reasonable person would agree that essentially they do not know anything now that they did not know last October or during the general election, because nothing new of substance has come out. Yet they are listening to the suggestions of "no smoke without fire" pundits and wondering is there something they might have missed.
There isn't. There is no smoking gun, just a human story, a private story which concerns someone in public life. I believe it is already widely accepted I am not guilty of any charge in relation to Owen O'Callaghan. In time, the tribunal will come to a final conclusion and will publish its findings.
It is my job, and that of the Government I have the honour to lead, to manage the affairs of the nation on your behalf, and to the best of my ability. That is my duty, that is my intention and that is what I will do.