The future of all tribunals will be determined by the Supreme Court in an important decision, with major political ramifications, to be handed down by the end of the month.
The judgment in the Haughey case will have a crucial bearing on the fate of the Moriarty and Flood tribunals which are inquiring into the actions of former office-holders, Mr Charles J. Haughey, Mr Michael Lowry and Mr Ray Burke, in private preliminary investigations for months.
It could also have an impact on the cohesion of the Government, with members fearing that the potential fall-out from the two sitting tribunals and the High Court inspectors investigation into National Irish Bank and the Ansbacher accounts could do more than anything else to destabilise the coalition. Coinciding with the publication of Government proposals for a standards in public office commission, which is intended to replace judicial tribunals into political irregularities, the Supreme Court's decision is awaited with considerable interest by politicians from all parties.
In their appeal to the Supreme Court, lawyers for former Taoiseach Mr Haughey, and members of his family have mounted a "root-and-branch" challenge to the constitutionality of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, establishing the Moriarty tribunal. They have questioned whether Dail and Seanad Eireann or, indeed, the Taoiseach had the power to direct the setting up of the tribunal with terms of reference "unique in the jurisprudence of the State".
Apart from the principal of the tribunal itself, the Haugheys are claiming that their constitutional rights to privacy, to hold property and to their good name are being infringed. They are also asserting that the terms of reference are oppressive and excessive.
A central point being argued by the Haugheys, according to informed legal sources, is that a tribunal is not empowered to administer justice. That power is vested in the courts under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court appears to have three options for dealing with the Haughey case.
It could find that 1921 Act setting up the Moriarty tribunal is unconstitutional, thereby striking down the principal of tribunals and stopping Flood and Moriarty in their tracks. It could modify the procedures of the Moriarty tribunal, with a consequent spin-off for the Flood tribunal. Finally, it could uphold the High Court decision in the Haughey case by dismissing the proceedings.
In the High Court last April, Mr Justice Geoghegan said that in the light of the findings of the Dunnes Stores payments tribunal, it was "bordering on the absurd" for Mr Haughey to claim he was being discriminated against as compared with former Taoisigh, former Ministers or former TDs or other holders of Ansbacher accounts.
With the Supreme Court expected to deliver its judgment by Friday week, senior legal and Government sources anticipate that the outcome of the Haughey case could have a major bearing on the deliberations of the two sitting tribunals. This was implicitly acknowledged by the Government last week when it published its proposals for a permanent commission to police ethical issues for politicians.
Pending the Supreme Court's finding, meanwhile, the Moriarty tribunal, which is conducting further inquiries into the affairs of Mr Haughey and Mr Lowry, hopes to be in a position to begin public hearings in the autumn. It has been sitting since last October in what is called its private investigatory phase.
The Flood tribunal, which is investigating the affairs of Mr Ray Burke and other planning matters, was set up last December. It has been conducting private investigations since January. It has fixed no date yet for the start of public hearings.
