The Irish Political Review – May 2011 “Moriarty on Lowry”
An article entitled “Moriarty on Lowry” was published in the May 2011 Edition of the Irish Political Review. This article, written by Mr. John Martin, dealt with Volume One of the Final Report Part Two as issued by the Moriarty Tribunal in March 2011.
A copy of this incisive article written by Mr. Martin in the Irish Political Review can be accessed via the link below
The article dealt with the opinions issued by the Moriarty Tribunal in relation to alleged payments made to Mr. Michael Lowry. The opinions as issued by the Tribunal in this regard have been vehemently rejected by Mr. Denis O’Brien and by a large number of others; primarily on the basis that these “opinions” simply do not reflect the sworn evidence given to the Tribunal since sittings began in relation to these matters as far back as March 2001.
It is a matter of fact that not a single individual was produced by the Moriarty Tribunal in over ten years’ of private and public inquiries costing tens of millions of euro that gave any direct evidence of any improper payment having been made to Michael Lowry in relation to the second mobile phone licence process or otherwise.
A few extracts from this article are set out below:
“…The Moriarty report is not an objective report into political corruption. After fourteen years of investigation costing tens of millions of euros it could not avoid being a defence of the record of the tribunal. A finding of no corruption would have invited ridicule.
“…This is not to say that the findings of the report are automatically untrue. However, it is not a detached, even handed examination of the evidence. In this writer’s opinion the lengthy and expensive nature of the process must have influenced the result…”
In discussing the Tribunal’s findings in relation to the US$50,000 Telenor donation to Fine Gael, whilst acknowledging the fact that the Tribunal found that this donation had nothing whatsoever to do with Michael Lowry, the author describes the Tribunal’s improper determination to make adverse findings regardless (which he decribes as “…justifying his interest...”) as reading:
“…more like a sneer than a detached conclusion of a judge wishing to keep within the terms of reference of his report…”
Elsewhere in the article, the author refers to
“…an example of the Report being more like a statement for the prosecution than an objective, disapassionate analysis of what happened…”
In discussing the opinions issued by the Tribunal in relation to alleged payments and how this related to the licence process, the author states:
“…The decision to grant the license to Esat was made in October 1995. There followed a period of negotiation which concluded in May 1996 with the formal award of the licence. Moriarty could find no evidence of any corrupt payment by Esat before the awarding of the licence. In my opinion, the evidence that he adduces after the award is very weak…” (emphasis added)
The articles concludes:
“…Moriarty’s report on alleged payments to Lowry is biased. It certainly is not an even handed objective investigation, which one would expect in a Tribunal process….Moriarty completely fails to provide any convincing hard evidence to show that there were corrupt payments made to Michael Lowry. He relies on speculation and hearsay. And the speculation and hearsay is just not plausible”
A further article was published in the June 2011 edition of the Irish Political Review dealing with Volume Two of the Moriarty Tribunal’s Final Report Part Two i.e. the section of the Tribunal’s report dealing with the awarding of the second mobile phone licence process. A copy of this article will also be published on this site in early course. In referencing back to the May 2011 article, the author states as follows:
“…In last month’s Irish Political Review the first volume of the second part of the Moriarty Report was reviewed. This largely dealt with alleged payments made by Denis O’Brien to Michael Lowry. O’Brien has always denied that he gave even one red cent to Lowry. Last month it was concluded that the evidence adduced by Moriarty against O’Brien was weak to the point of non existence…”