Frank Connolly has questions to answer

His fine journalistic record and his involvement in a much-needed independent institution of inquiry should not be damaged by evasiveness

Frank Connolly, the director of the Centre for Public Inquiry, is a journalist of considerable distinction. As a reporter with the Sunday Business Post over many years, he broke stories that led to the establishment of the Planning Tribunal and the Morris Tribunal. It was he who persuaded James Gogarty to tell his story in the first instance. It was he who broke the stories about Garda misconduct in Donegal.

He has shown a persistence and an integrity in his journalistic career that has been admirable and of a kind fortunately very different to that of his detractors, especially in Independent News and Media.

The Dáil statement by Michael McDowell in answer to a written question about Frank Connolly is questionable in several regards. McDowell's claims that Frank Connolly travelled to a FARC-controlled region of Colombia in April 2001, using a false passport and in the company of a well known IRA member, Padraigh Wilson, and his (Frank Connolly's) brother, Niall Connolly, for the purpose of trading expertise in the use of explosives for cash is a cheap shot. Such information could be based only on Colombian "intelligence" sources, which must be regarded as notoriously unreliable. To found a statement of unqualified "fact" on the basis of information from such sources is reckless, even if supported by a Garda gloss. Nevertheless, questions remain for Frank Connolly to answer in a clear and forthright manner and, so far he has failed to do that. Although he did make some progress on that front on RTÉ's News at One on Wednesday, 7 December.

For whatever reason and by whatever means, there have been repeated reports over the last several years that Frank Connolly did travel to Colombia on a false passport in the company of a well known IRA person. A journalist who, quite rightly, seeks to hold others to account for their public actions, is, quite rightly, expected to himself/herself to be accountable for their public actions. If it is true that Frank Connolly was in Colombia using a false passport, it raises questions about agendas he may be following in his public role as a journalist and now as director of the Centre for Public Enquiry.

In his response to Michael McDowell's Dáil statement, Frank Connolly has been quoted in the newspapers merely as claiming that "false allegations" had been made about him since 2002 in the media and now Michael McDowell "has purported to usurp the functions of the Garda and the Director of Public Prosecutions" and further Michael McDowell is seeking to "destroy" his reputation under the cover of Dáil privilege.

On the News at One he was more forthright. Asked if he had ever been to Colombia he said "no". Asked if he had never travelled on a false passport, he said "no". But when pressed about related issues, such as his photograph on a false passport and his dealings with the gardaí on the issue, he lapsed into circumlocutions, irrelevancies and claims of being "interrogated". He made maters worse by saying he would await dealing with some of the questions that arise until such time as he is prosecuted with offences related to these allegations.

His responses, while better than previously, are still unconvincing, and when added to his vague and diversionary earlier response, merely add to an incredulity surrounding the whole affair.

A categorical statement that he had never been to Colombia, that he had never travelled on a false passport, that he had never facilitated anybody acquiring a false passport, that he had never travelled abroad in the company of the IRA person named and that he was in specific places elsewhere on the dates he was supposedly in Colombia would be reassuring.

If he is now not in a position to give such categorical denials and verifications, there is a problem – not just for him but for the Centre of Public Inquiry.

It will be claimed that a person is innocent until proved guilty. Not so. This is a canon in the administration of justice but in the conduct of public affairs it is not applicable. Where questions arise about a journalist that question his/her motivation and agenda, then they deserve to be answered in full and the journalist, like other public figures, should be expected to give every reason why the allegations behind the questions are entirely false – that is, for course, where they are entirely false.

Complaints about being interrogated by other journalists merely asking appropriate questions add to suspicion. Assurances that he/she will deal with such issues in a criminal court should there ever be a criminal trial, add further to suspicion. Frank Connolly's defensiveness and evasiveness merely add to the problems, not dispose of them.

He should now make a complete statement concerning all of these matters, including his dealings with gardaí. We have no right to demand this of someone who is "merely" a private citizen, but Frank Connolly has put himself in a position where such a resort is not open to him. Journalists dealing with public affairs and holding others accountable should be accountable themselves on their public doings. This is all the more so in the case of someone recently appointed director of a well-funded centre for public enquiry into public issues.

If he fails to do that, the Centre for Public Enquiry will be seriously compromised in its work and credibility and the directors of the Centre should take cognizance of that. An independent, well-funded institution dedicated to the investigation of major issues in Irish public life is all the more necessary as much of the media is controlled by interests that should be the subject of media investigation. That institution should not be damaged by evasiveness on the part of its director in responding to reasonable queries concerning his public conduct.

Vincent Browne