1995: Esat Digifone applies for and wins a competition for the right to conduct exclusive negotiations for the State’s second mobile phone licence.
1996: The licence is issued. The Esat consortium at this stage includes Dermot Desmond’s IIU Ltd, which has replaced the role of four financial institutions mentioned in the original application. Legal advice is sought from Richard Nesbitt SC, prior to the issuing of the licence, on whether the licence can be issued to Esat, given the change in ownership.
1997: Moriarty tribunal established to look into payments to Michael Lowry and the late Charles Haughey.
1999: Tribunal conducts a private inquiry into the licence, which was granted when Mr Lowry was minister for transport, energy and communications. Does not take it any further.
2001: Tribunal learns of possible financial links between Mr Lowry and Denis O’Brien, founder of Esat. Initiates a second, more detailed, private inquiry.
2002 (October): Tribunal conducts private interview with Denis McFadden, of Attorney General’s office (according to Mr McFadden’s recent statement to the tribunal).
The meeting involves discussion of the Dermot Desmond ownership issue.
2002 (December): Tribunal delivers lengthy opening
statement in which it refers to the legality of issuing the licence given the change in ownership.
2002 (December) to 2007: The tribunal hears evidence on matters relating to MR Lowry and the licence. The inquiry is given a copy of the legal advice from Mr Nesbitt, dated May 1996, but it cannot mention it in public as the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment is claiming legal privilege on the document. The tribunal decides the advice does not address the ownership issue, although such advice was sought from Mr Nesbitt.
November 2008: Tribunal delivers its provisional findings to interested parties, including the key finding on whether the issuing of the licence to Esat, given the ownership issue, was legal.
March 2009: The Cabinet decides the privilege claim on the Nesbitt advice should be lifted. Parties press the tribunal to call Nesbitt.
July 2009: Mr Nesbitt takes the stand and insists his advice does cover the ownership issue and says he gave oral advice to the effect that the change in ownership should not prevent the licence being issued. He says he accepts that others might not recollect his giving this oral advice, but his recollection is “crystal clear”. Counsel for the tribunal, John Coughlan SC, questions the credibility of his evidence but Mr Nesbitt insists he is telling the truth.
January 2010: Further provisional findings, including findings on the Nesbitt evidence are issued. A number of parties call on the tribunal to hear evidence from officials of the Attorney General’s office. (The legal advice from Mr Nesbitt was commissioned by the Attorney General’s office, for Mr Lowry’s department.)
March 2010: The tribunal agrees to call the officials from the Attorney General’s office.
A number of parties are understood to have been threatening to seek judicial reviews if they were not called.
Yesterday: Statements from the two officials, John Gormley and Denis McFadden, are circulated to interested parties prior to their scheduled appearance at the tribunal on Thursday.
Both men say they can recall Mr Nesbitt giving oral advice to the effect that the licence could be issued. They also say they believe the written advice from Mr Nesbitt dealt with the issue.
Mr McFadden says he met with the tribunal in private in October 2002 when he was of the view the written advice dealt with the ownership issue.