Is there anybody saying stop? The public's confidence in the institutions of the State is at rock bottom, the two political tribunals are painting a picture of systematic corruption and the main parties are trying to grapple with allegations of stashes of cash for planning votes. At this time, when the perception of public life could not be lower, the Fianna Fail/ Progressive Democrats Government, which was set to impeach the former Supreme Court judge, Mr Hugh O'Flaherty, just over a year ago for his role in the relisting of the Sheedy case, chooses to prefer him for a plum political job. Mr O'Flaherty has been nominated for the position of Vice-President of the European Investment Bank on a salary of £147,000, equivalent to a European Commissioner.
It may be possible, on a human level, to understand why the Coalition would want to look after Mr O'Flaherty. The nomination was made by the Minister for Finance, Mr McCreevy, and fully supported by his Government partners. It can be argued, quite validly, that his academic qualifications and achievements are as good, if not better, than those of his predecessor in the post. But to ignore the circumstances which led to the preparation of the preliminary steps in the impeachment process and the consequent resignation of Mr Justice O'Flaherty from the Supreme Court, is inappropriate, unwise, and inexplicable.
The then Chief Justice, Mr Liam Hamilton, was compelled to conduct the first inquiry of its kind into the role played by Mr Justice O'Flaherty and Mr Justice Cyril Kelly of the High Court in the relisting of the Philip Sheedy case in April of last year. The mere holding of such an investigation generated a climate of constitutional crisis. Mr Justice Hamilton's conclusion about his close colleague of many years was that "Mr Justice O'Flaherty's intervention was inappropriate and unwise, that it left his motives and action open to misinterpretation and that it was, therefore, damaging to the administration of justice".
Accepting that Mr Justice O'Flaherty "became involved in the case in a spirit of humanitarian interest", the then Chief Justice could not share his colleague's belief that a judge of the Supreme Court, having called the County Registrar, an official of a lower court to his chambers, could expect that anything said by him would be received by the said official as if it had come from a private individual. He went on to conclude that "this case might not have been relisted in the way it was but for the intervention of Mr Justice O'Flaherty".
In these circumstances, the Opposition parties would be failing in their democratic duty if they did not demand an explanation from the Government for the nomination. The leader of the Labour Party, Mr Quinn, has asked whether the job was an appropriate reward for somebody who declined to co-operate with an Oireachtas committee. Mr Michael Noonan of Fine Gael suggested that the considerations which led to Mr O'Flaherty's resignation should also apply to his appointment by the Government to any other high public office.
The appointment of Mr O'Flaherty as Ireland's nominee to the European Investment Bank betrays the whole concept of accountability in a democracy. Are we to believe that a terrible injustice was done to him over his role in the Sheedy case last year and that Mr Cyril Kelly can also expect political preferment? And if that law applies to members of the judiciary after inquiries have reached damaging conclusions, can we look forward to Mr Charles Haughey, Mr Ray Burke, Mr George Redmond, et al being nominated to represent us on the world stage?