THERE is a smell off everything surrounding the departure of the former Garda commissioner, and it’s beginning to turn really sour. With each new revelation about the circumstances around, and investigation of, the resignation of Martin Callinan, suspicion grows that he may have been sacked in a manner usually reserved for despotic regimes.
The latest missive from the Fennelly Inquiry is deeply troubling. Former judge Nial Fennelly has written to the Taoiseach informing him that publication of an interim report, expected to deal with Mr Callinan’s resignation, has been delayed indefinitely. The inclusion of Mr Callinan’s departure in the commission’s terms of reference at all was highly suspicious. This latest delay heightens suspicion further, and for the first time raises a question about the inquiry itself. What possible reason could there be to delay what might be an embarrassing, or even devastating, report on the Taoiseach?
The issue itself is basic, both in terms of what was involved and its relevance to democratic tenets. Was Mr Callinan de facto fired on March 25 last year in order to put a lid on ballooning Garda scandals? Was he sacrificed to save the bacon of then justice minister Alan Shatter? Was he sacked, not for anything related to his performance, but for political expediency?
The timing of Mr Callinan’s departure is central to the whole issue. By March last year, the Government had been grappling with scandals involving the gardaí and the criminal justice system for the previous three months. At a time when Enda Kenny should have been basking in the departure of the troika, he was drowning in scandals that were not of his making.
At the Public Accounts Committee in January, Mr Callinan had described the actions of the two garda whistleblowers as “disgusting”. The following month, a story broke that the offices of the Garda Ombudsman may have been bugged. Soon after, Micheál Martin told the Dáil of a series of allegations by Sgt Maurice McCabe about negligent criminal investigations.
Also, at the time, controversy bubbled over in relation to remarks Mr Shatter had made the previous October, when, under privilege, he told the Dáil that Mr McCabe and former garda John Wilson had not co-operated with a Garda inquiry into abuse of the penalty points system. This remark was interpreted as an attack on the character of both men.
At every juncture in these matters, both Mr Shatter and Mr Callinan were found wanting. However, for a while it looked as if the worst might be over. The bugging issue and Mr McCabe’s allegations had been parked, temporarily, in respective inquiries.
Then, on March 21, Leo Varadkar, then the transport minister, spoke his mind at a road safety event. He said the actions of the whistleblowers had been “distinguished” rather than “disgusting”. Within 48 hours, the Labour Party complement of five ministers came out to endorse Mr Varadkar’s remarks. Suddenly, the lid was blown right off the scandals again.
That weekend, Mr Kenny got word that another one was brewing. In the course of preparation for the Ian Bailey case — currently at hearing in the High Court — it had emerged that telephone conversations to and from regional Garda stations had been taped for the last 30 years.
Four individuals at the heart of the Government were party to what happened thereafter.
Mr Kenny informed Mr Shatter about the matter. The secretaries general at each man’s department, Martin Frazer and Brian Purcell, were also in the loop.
On the Monday evening, Mr Kenny dispatched Mr Purcell to Mr Callinan’s house to allegedly inform him of the Cabinet’s “concern” about this new scandal.
Mr Callinan resigned the following morning. Was he pushed? If so, the Taoiseach acted outside his powers, and did so for apparent party political reasons. Mr Callinan was culpable for the scandals in the early part of the year, but he could hardly be blamed for anything to do with the Garda tapes, which had gone on for more than 30 years.
Two days after his departure, “sources close to” Mr Callinan gave RTÉ’s Paul Reynolds the former commissioner’s version of events.
“The secretary general [Mr Purcell] explained that there were differences around the Cabinet table in relation to this issue [the Garda tapes],” Mr Reynolds quoted his source. “That there may or may not be a difficulty for him in Cabinet. The commissioner was left to consider overnight. The next day he spoke with the secretary general (again) who informed him that this situation had not improved.”
This is very curious. The Cabinet was, at that point, unaware of the Garda tapes issue. How could they have “differences” if they simply knew nothing about it?
During his report, Mr Reynolds was asked by presenter Richard Crowley: “Did he retire, or was he pushed?”
Mr Reynolds replied: “His view is people can make up their own mind on that.”
And this is where the smell is emanating from. Was Mr Kenny advised, or did he just decide, that a lid had to be put on the scandals that were re-emerging and being added to? Mr Callinan was, by then, an embarrassment to the Government over his “disgusting” remarks. Was the strategy to throw him to the wolves, and tell Mr Shatter to apologise for his own remarks in the Dail? An inquiry could be set up in record time about the tapes, thus blowing the significance of the matter out of all proportion, and facilitating deflection from the other scandals. And, with a bit of luck, the Government could “move on”.
The above is a perfectly plausible interpretation of what happened. It would have been open to Mr Kenny to dismiss it by telling Paddy what exactly was going on. Instead, under pressure from Micheál Martin in particular, he chose to shovel the matter into the tapes inquiry under Nial Fennelly. Doing so was arguably an abuse of process. The commission of inquiry legislation was never meant to accommodate political matters, which are properly dealt with in the Oireachtas and public forums.
Since then, we have learned that three of the five individuals had to be recalled to give further evidence because of conflicting statements. Now, it turns out, all may be long-fingered, perhaps beyond the next general election. Irrespective of what Paddy might like, he’s being given less and less information.
Remember how Bertie Ahern’s cabinet showed a complete lack of interest in revelations emerging from the planning tribunal about his exploits with sterling, horses, and money falling out of trees? For then, read now. For Bertie, read Enda. Today’s cabinet appears totally disinterested in either what happened or how it is being dealt with.
God bless the democratic revolution
Michael Clifford
No comments:
Post a Comment