THE MORIARTY tribunal is being asked to sit once again to hear further evidence on what may be the key finding of its long-awaited report.
It is understood a number of parties are urging the tribunal to hear evidence from officials from the Attorney General’s office concerning legal advice given to the Department of Transport, Energy and Communications in 1996.
The evidence concerns a key finding of the forthcoming report on whether the mobile phone licence issued to Denis O’Brien’s Esat Digifone in 1996, was legally issued.
In July last year, Richard Nesbitt SC gave evidence concerning legal advice he gave to the department in 1996. He said his advice was that the licence could be legally issued to Esat Digifone.
He gave evidence in response to provisional findings of the tribunal concerning the licence and whether the entity that was given the licence was the entity that applied for it in 1995.
The consortium that applied for the licence had no connection with businessman Dermot Desmond, but by the time the licence was issued, he was a 20 per cent shareholder. The documentation that invited bids for the licence said bidders would have to clearly identify their shareholders.
The department was notified of Mr Desmond’s involvement during the competition for the right to conduct exclusive negotiations for the licence.
Last week, the tribunal issued further provisional findings that included its response to Mr Nesbitt’s evidence and that of other parties, including civil servants. The provisional findings cannot be disclosed for legal reasons.
Interested parties have been given until February 3rd to respond to the latest provisional findings, indicating that the report could be published later that month. However, a number of parties are understood to be urging the tribunal to call officials from the Attorney General’s office. Mr Nesbitt’s legal advice was commissioned through that office and technically that advice was from the attorney general’s office rather than Mr Nesbitt.
The Attorney General at the time was Dermot Gleeson SC, but it is not thought he will be called.
In his evidence in July, Mr Nesbitt said he gave written advice to the department on May 9th, 1996, and oral advice during meetings in the department on May 14th and 15th, 1996. He accepted others did not recall his oral advice but his recollection was “crystal clear”.
John Coughlan SC, for the tribunal, said Mr Nesbitt was “asking the tribunal to accept that your evidence is credible”. Mr Nesbitt said he had not gone into the witness box to give incorrect evidence. Mr Coughlan suggested Mr Nesbitt’s evidence was not credible. Mr Nesbitt rejected this suggestion.
Mr Nesbitt told Jim O’Callaghan SC for Mr O’Brien, he could recall saying at a meeting that it was his opinion that changes to the Esat consortium that did not affect the business plan that had won the licence competition, were legally permissible.