THE Minister for Social Welfare, Mr De Rossa, yesterday told the High Court that a letter purportedly sent by the Workers' Party to the Soviet Union peeking funds was bogus and that he had never signed it.
The letter, dated September 15th 1986 and sent to the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was found in Moscow archives. It sought funds of more than £1 million. It claimed a shortfall between the party's expenditure and income had in the past been met by "special activities".
These were not possible to detail, the letter stated, "because of reasons we are sure you will understand".
Mr De Rossa said the first he heard of the letter was when he received a telephone call on a Sunday night from the London Independent, saying that a letter had been found in the archives in Moscow which bore his name.
He told that journalist he had no recollection of signing any letter which went to Moscow. The journalist said it was on Workers' Party headed notepaper.
Subsequently, The Irish Times published what it claimed was the text of the letter and he was contacted by its staff.
"When I read the text, it was quite clear to me I would never have signed the letter concerned. I denied absolutely that I signed it," Mr De Rossa said.
There was controversy over the letter. All of the media were interested in it, not so much as he would have imagined about a party's request for funds, but because of the reference to "special activities", which was assumed by the media to mean illegal activities.
Asked by Mr Paul O'Higgins SC, for Mr De Rossa: "By whom?" Mr De Rossa replied: "It was assumed that because the letter was from the WP it was by the WV.
Mr De Rossa said that at the time the letter appeared in 1992 there was political turmoil. The PDs had withdrawn from government with Fianna Fail and there had been a general election.
He indicated to anyone who asked him that he had nothing to do with the letter. The letter had never been discussed by the ardchomhairle or the political committee or the management committee of the party. It was, to his mind, "a completely bogus letter."
Mr O'Higgins then turned to December 13th, 1992, when the article was published.
"It's ingrained in my memory," Mr De Rossa said. On that Sunday morning, he got a phone call from a friend who asked if he had seen the Sunday Independent. He had not and the friend said that he should go and get it as a very serious charge had been made against him by Eamon Dunphy.
"When I started to read the first few paragraphs, I was completely and utterly devastated," Mr De Rossa said.
Referring to the first paragraph, Mr De Rossa said a general election had taken place but there was no majority. The Labour Party was negotiating with his party to see if they could come to agreement on the formation of a government. There was a lot of controversy that the Labour Party was talking to Democratic Left.
Mr O'Higgins, referring to the article, asked if Mr De Rossa at that time or any earlier time made reference to "special activities".
Mr De Rossa said: "No."
Mr O'Higgins asked if he was aware of "special activities" being carried out to fund the WP.
Mr De Rossa said: "No, not any time, never."
Replying to Mr O'Higgins, Mr De Rossa said he would not in any sense condone armed robberies and such an act would never have been acceptable to him or the WP as a means of funding. He was also never aware of the WP being funded by forgery of currency.
Mr O'Higgins asked what he would say to his name being linked to drugs, prostitution and protection rackets.
Mr De Rossa said when he read those paragraphs, he was devastated. He could not understand why Eamon Dunphy would sit down and write such things about him. There was no basis for such a claim. He could not understand how one half decent human being could make such a claim.
Mr O'Higgins asked him how he felt about being given the "benefit of the doubt" by Mr Dunphy in the article.
Mr De Rossa said his immediate reaction was that they were trying to take the sting out of it, trying to pretend that they were not accusing him of appalling crimes.
In his view, the benefit of the doubt was given to criminals. "I am not a criminal. I do not require the benefit of the doubt from Eamon Dunphy or anyone else. I stand on my record as a citizen," he said.
Mr O'Higgins asked about the suggestion in the article that he had recently converted to decency,
Mr De Rossa said he did not know Eamon Dunphy at all. He did not believe he had ever met him other than in the courtroom. He used to read his articles on football until he got sick of that. He assumed Eamon Dunphy was a decent person. He did not understand how a decent person would write that.
Mr De Rossa said that he was not a saint. He believed himself to be at least as decent as Eamon Dunphy. He did not need Eamon Dunphy or anyone else to welcome his conversion to decency.
Asked about drugs, Mr De Rossa said he did not think there was a parent in Ireland who could be anything but appalled by drug abuse and the damage it did to children. He had stood out against drug pushers in his constituency.
Mr O'Higgins asked about prostitution. Mr De Rossa said it involved exploitation of women primarily and, unfortunately, these days also the exploitation of children.
For Eamon Dunphy to say that of him and for the Sunday Independent, one of the most powerful newspapers in the country, to say it, was appalling and for them to refuse to withdraw it was equally appalling.
They believed they could face him down but the reason he was in court for the second time "going through this hell" was that he did not intend to be faced down by the Sunday Independent.
Asked about labour camps, which were mentioned in the article, Mr De Rossa said he had been interned himself for close to two years. It was not a labour camp in any sense, but he did know what it was like to be deprived of his freedom without any charge or trial. He would not support any party of Government that would do such a thing.
Mr De Rossa said it was clear that what Eamon Dunphy was saying was that he was a criminal, a drug pusher, a pimp, not a decent person and not a person fit to be a Minister in the Government of this State.
If what Eamon Dunphy said was true, he [Mr De Rossa] would not have any right to be, but it was not true and there was no evidence or basis for saying it was true.
For Eamon Dunphy to say he was not fit to serve the people of this country was deeply hurtful to him and his family, both his own children and his brothers and sisters.