A letter produced at the tribunal yesterday may have significant implications for lines of inquiry pursued by the tribunal during its public sittings. Colm Keena reports
The Moriarty tribunal has had its attention drawn to the contents of a letter which has been in its possession for more than a year and which it seems has significant implications for one of the lines of inquiry it has been pursuing for some months now in public evidence.
During the appearances of a number of civil servants who were members of the project team that assessed bids for the State's second mobile phone licence in 1995, the tribunal has explored a scenario whereby the then minister, Mr Michael Lowry, intervened in the process to speed it up as it neared its conclusion.
The potential significance of this was that Mr Lowry knew at the time that Esat Digifone was being ranked first in the bidding at the time of his intervention.
However, yesterday a letter was produced which shows that a specific programme was set down for the assessment process in early September 1995, a month before the former minister's intervention. Furthermore, the programme of dates by which certain matters would occur was actually adhered to by the team.
The letter was sent by the chairman of the assessment team, Mr Martin Brennan, to the head of a Danish consultancy firm that was working on the project, Mr Michael Andersen, on September 14th, 1995. Mr Lowry's intervention probably occurred on October 3rd.
Yesterday Mr Brennan said he considered the content of the letter to be significant. Counsel for Mr Denis O'Brien and for the Norwegian firm Telenor (which was part of the Esat Digifone group), have said the document has implications for lines of inquiry which have been pursued and that it was "extraordinary" that it was coming to light at this late stage. Though the development does not make for startling headlines, its significance is considerable.
The tribunal's forensic examination of the 1995 competition process has not come up with any evidence of Mr Lowry directly seeking to influence the assessment team's assessment of the bids.
The former minister's comment to Mr Brennan in early October 1995, that he would like to see the process accelerated, has been the strongest piece of evidence produced to date that Mr Lowry had in any way interfered with the process.
If the process ended as per the timetable set in early or mid September, a timetable which had nothing to do with Mr Lowry and which was set before the bids had been ranked, then Mr Lowry's comment to Mr Brennan is of much less relevance.
This in turn means that at this stage of the inquiry there is very little, and arguably nothing at all, to indicate there was any interference at all by Mr Lowry in the competition process. Despite this, however, it could take up to early or mid-2004 before the hearings into the issue come to an end. Copies of all documents concerning the competition process and in the possession of the Department were given to the tribunal when it was conducting its year-long private inquiry into the licence competition.
That process led to the initiation of public hearings in November of last year and these hearings are continuing.
One of the members of the team, civil servant Ms Maev Ní Lochlainn, noted the letter to Mr Andersen a few weeks ago when she was conducting some research linked with her appearance at the tribunal. She in turn brought it to the attention of the legal team acting for the Department of Communications and to the attention of Mr Brennan, who is currently back in the witness box having already given evidence in late 2002 and early 2003.
Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr O'Brien, expressed concern yesterday that there might be documents in the possession of the tribunal or the Department, the significance of which are being overlooked. He wanted all documents checked.
Mr Justice Moriarty, however, said he did not agree that the letter from Mr Brennan was so crucial to the overall picture outlined to date.