Letter: Irish state cannot preach accountability over Legacy and Troubles matters while evading it

For decades, successive governments in the Republic of Ireland resisted calls to apologise for failing to extradite or robustly pursue IRA suspects during the Troubles.

These were not trivial matters, they concerned individuals wanted under lawful UK warrants for escape from lawful custody, bombings, shootings and murder.

When challenged, Dublin’s stock response has been procedural deflection, extradition decisions were taken “within the legal frameworks of the time.” That defence may be technically arguable, but it is not morally sufficient.

Contrast that with the British government’s position. In 2010, then prime minister David Cameron formally apologised following the Saville Inquiry into Bloody Sunday, accepting that the killings were “unjustified and unjustifiable”.

However, Irish taoiseach Micheál Martin and minister for foreign affairs Helen McEntee dismiss calls for any comparable acknowledgement regarding past extradition policy.

Their position rests not on moral clarity but on legal minimalism and weakness, hiding behind the letter of past procedural law while refusing to confront the spirit of accountability they demand from others.

Legality alone does not exhaust responsibility. Over the years, public admissions have only sharpened these questions.

Kieran Conway openly described himself in media interviews as a former IRA intelligence chief and acknowledged involvement in armed activity and robberies.

Patrick Ryan admitted in a BBC Spotlight interview to assisting the Provisional IRA, including logistical support connected to the 1984 Brighton bombing. Des Long likewise acknowledged senior IRA involvement in broadcast interviews. All resided openly in the Republic of Ireland.

For IRA victims’ families, this is not rhetorical. It is legal and specific. If individuals were subject to lawful extradition warrants for grave terrorist offences, and if Irish authorities declined or failed to act decisively, does that not raise legitimate questions of state responsibility?

Under jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights, states carry positive obligations to ensure effective investigation into unlawful killings and to cooperate across jurisdictions in serious crime.

Those obligations are binding, they are not discretionary.

They are not political leverage to be deployed selectively.

The current Irish government continues to demand full British disclosure, acknowledgement and apology for historic failings, while refusing even to contemplate whether its own record warrants scrutiny, acknowledgement or regret.

That contradiction is now obvious. Dublin cannot credibly insist upon unqualified British contrition while asserting retrospective immunity for its own controversial decisions. Accountability cannot function as a one-way mirror.

The sustained IRA bombing campaign over decades, much of it enabled by explosives sourced within the Republic, devastated families across Northern Ireland and Great Britain. If the principle is that victims deserve truth, acknowledgement and, where appropriate, apology, then that principle must apply in Dublin as much as in Belfast.

If taoiseach Micheál Martin and minister Helen McEntee continue to reject even the discussion of moral responsibility, they weaken their own authority on legacy issues. A government that demands transparency abroad while resisting reflection at home cannot claim the high ground.

Justice cannot be geographically selective, if it is to mean anything, it must be even-handed.

William Mitchell, Lisburn