Fianna Fáil leader challenged by accused to retract Dáil statements in ‘abuse of parliamentary privilege’

‘I refute totally the allegations that Mr Martin has put into the public record’

FIANNA FÁIL LEADER Mícheál Martin has been challenged by Pádraic Wilson to substantiate or retract “false accusations and assertions in relation to me” made by Mr Martin during Wednesday’s Leaders’ Statements in the Dáil on Maíría Cahill.

Pádraic Wilson accuses the Fianna Fáil leader of ignoring a clear warning by An Leass-Cheann Comhairle about making such allegations against people outside the Dáil “even where matters are already in the public domain”. By ignoring this warning, Pádraic Wilson says, Mícheál Martin has abused parliamentary privilege for political gain.

Solicitors Madden & Finucane issued a “Statement of Pádraic Wilson” on Friday evening in Belfast. 

The statement begins by noting that An Leas-Cheann Comhairle issued a reminder in the Dáil on 12 November before the leaders – including the leaders of Fine Gael, Labour and Fianna Fáil – got up to make their statements.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle said directly to the leaders and their TDs speaking on the issue:

“Before we begin, I must remind Members that, while all Members have absolute privilege under the Constitution in respect of anything they say in the House, they also have a responsibility not to name or identify and debate any person upon whom the reference may be perceived as an adverse reflection or as affecting his or her good name because such persons are defenceless against remarks made by Members under privilege.

“There is the long-standing rule that, even where matters are already in the public domain, Members must not repeat under privilege allegations made outside the House. Members should also be aware that allegations against any Member can only be made by substantive motion and not by innuendo or otherwise across the floor of the House.

“If allegations are made about named or otherwise identifiable persons by any Member in the course of the debate, I will stop the Member and ask him or her to retract the remarks. 

“Any failure to do so is prima facie an abuse of privilege and will be treated as disorderly behaviour.”

The statement by Pádraic Wilson through his solicitors further notes that, during the course of the ensuing contributions and exchanges, which were opened by An Taoiseach and Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny, Fianna Fáil leader Mícheál Martin made the following contribution:

“The Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin cover-up has too many dimensions to go into them all today but we should note the sheer number of times that figures acknowledged as Sinn Féin representatives have turned up in these cases. The most striking example of this is Pádraic Wilson, someone Deputy Adams continues to refer to as a ‘decent man’.

“Pádraic Wilson was a leader of the Provisional IRA in the Maze. He was twice temporarily released to attend Provisional IRA Conventions. When he was released under licence, Mr Gerry Kelly MLA was at the gate to greet him and hail him as a Movement hero. After his release, Pádraic Wilson assumed an active role in enforcing Provisional IRA justice and close to the Northern leadership of Sinn Féin.

“He is a consistent thread in many of the stories from the last decade and a half. He was involved in the investigation into the abuse of Maíría Cahill. He was involved in the investigation into the rape of brothers in Louth and other cases, yet Sinn Féin has gone to extraordinary lengths to protect Pádraic Wilson. When he was first arrested, Sinn Féin threatened to withdraw support for policing unless he was released. It held demonstrations on his behalf and stated without qualification that he had no case to answer. There is no doubt that within the Provisional Republican Movement there remain untouchables.”

Pádraic Wilson’s statement through his solicitors continues in his own words:

❝Mr Martin ignored completely, for political gain, the caution of An Leas-Cheann Comhairle. I believe that in doing so he abused the parliamentary privilege that he was warned about at the start of the proceedings.

In doing so he also made a number of false accusations and assertions in relation to me.

I was not released on parole to attend or speak at any IRA Convention or meeting of any description.

Prior to ‘Home Leave’ being extended to all ‘Qualifying Prisoners’ through the Sentence Review Commission I applied for and was granted five periods of ‘Temporary Release’ between December 1997 and August 1998.

Two of those periods of parole were granted to me in relation to events and engagements linked to or arising from the Good Friday Agreement.

On May 9th 1998 I was granted a period of 48 hours to attend and speak at the Special Sinn Féin Ard Fheis held in the RDS in Dublin. The Ard Fheis had been called to discuss the Good Friday Agreement and to vote on whether or not to support it.

On August 7th 1998, I was granted a period of 8 hours to take part in a meeting with the Sentence Review Commission. I was accompanied at that meeting by Geraldine Ferrity (who had been released from Maghaberry under the same conditions as me), Gerry Kelly, Siobhán O’Hanlon and Leo Green.

The Ard Fheis and Sentence Review Commission events were done in the full glare of the media.

My attendance at the Ard Fheis was given extensive national and international coverage. The Sentence Review Commission meeting was covered in the national media. A ‘doorstep’ press event took place after the meeting outside the Sentence Review Commission offices in Belfast city centre.

The other three periods of parole – December 1997 (8 hours), April 1998 (10 hours) and June 1998 (8 hours) – were granted to allow me to visit my father who, at that time, was physically unable to visit me in Long Kesh.

I was not involved in any investigation into allegations of rape of two brothers or anyone else for that matter in County Louth.

He also asserted that I was involved in the ‘investigation into the abuse of Maíría Cahill’. I was not. I refute these allegations. I was acquitted of the two charges that were levelled against me because Maíría Cahill refused to take her case into court and have her claims against me subjected to cross-examination.

I refute totally the allegations that Mr Martin has put into the public record.

I challenge him to back up his accusations and produce the evidence to substantiate them. In the absence of such I request that he retracts those allegations and place that retraction on the record.❞