Statement from Michael Lowry

Tuesday 22 March 2011 13.18
Michael Lowry - Says the report is ultimately the opinion of the Chairman and it has no basis in law
Michael Lowry - Says the report is ultimately the opinion of the Chairman and it has no basis in law

Deputy Michael Lowry in a response said that he totally rejects the tenure of Moriarty report.

His report is factually wrong and deliberately misleading.

Moriarty has outrageously abused the Tribunal's ability to form opinions which are not substantiated by evidence or fact.

For example, in relation to the license it was not possible for me to interfere with the license process without the collusion of up to eighteen civil servants.

It is preposterous of Moriarty to form an opinion in his report that all of the civil servants and the consultant Michael Andersson had effectively lied under oath.

During the prolonged hearings into the license not one single witness gave evidence that I in any way interfered with the process or made any suggestion as to who should win the license.

Furthermore not one single witness gave evidence that I in any way undermined the application of any losing bidder.

It is ludicrous of Moriarty to state that the Government of the day were in any way misled or in any doubt as to the recommendation made by the Independent project team.

It should be remembered that the project team was comprised of senior civil servants from both the Department of Communications and the Department of Finance.

From the outset Moriarty was biased and has given fourteen years working to prove a theory that the license was improperly granted.

It beggars belief how he could ignore the extensive evidence given to the Tribunal which clearly confirms that I did not in any way influence the decision of the Independent project team.

Moriarty's credibility was shattered because of his selective approach to evidence during the private and public enquiry.

I have long believed that because of the time and massive expense involved with the Tribunal that the final report would have to justify its existence.

This report is ultimately the opinion of the Chairman and it has no basis in law.

It is my intention to study the report in detail and in due course, to challenge its veracity.