No comment from RHI Inquiry on top republicans’ identical answers

Yesterday the News Letter revealed that the two men – who played publicly unaccountable roles as Stormont fell in 2017 – provided identical answers to written questions from the inquiry into the cash for ash scandal.

New material released by the inquiry, which published its report in March, includes witness statements from Ted Howell and Martin Lynch.

The answers from the two men – the former of whom was trusted by the IRA as a go-between in the 1990s, and the latter of whom was Gerry Adams’ driver and described by Panorama’s John Ware as one of the IRA’s “most senior representatives” in 2003 when he had a key role in handling the Scappaticci informer affair for the IRA – were word-for-word identical.

The only discernible difference between the two statements was that Mr Howell used a slightly larger font size and Mr Howell’s was signed three days before that of his colleague.

Sinn Fein has declined to provide any explanation on why two of its senior members submitted identical witness statements.

The inquiry told most witnesses that they should not confer when responding to its questions and that the material given to them was to be treated in confidence. However, for some reason that warning was not included in the inquiry’s letter to the two men.

For instance, in the written questions sent to former DUP minister Jonathan Bell he was told: “It is vital that the witness statement you provide to the inquiry is your own evidence, absent the influence of others ... any breach of this duty of confidentiality is actionable at the suit of the inquiry chairman.”

The News Letter understands that although all Section 21 notices compelling witnesses to answer questions and provide documents were issued in the name of Patrick Butler, the inquiry’s solicitor, several inquiry staff were involved in drafting the letters and there was no single template, something which at least partially explains why some witnesses were given stern warnings and others received no warning at all.

However, there does not appear to be any evidence of the inquiry even asking the two men to explain why they had provided indistinguishable evidence.

The News Letter asked the inquiry why Mr Butler did not include the robust warning in his letters to the two republicans that witnesses must not to confer.

We also asked if the inquiry had any concern that Mr Lynch and Mr Howell had conferred over their evidence.

A spokesman for the inquiry would only say: “The inquiry has concluded its investigation and published its report. It does not intend to respond to queries in relation to the detail of these matters.”

—— ——

A message from the Editor:

Thank you for reading this story on our website. While I have your attention, I also have an important request to make of you.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our advertisers - and consequently the revenue we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you taking out a digital subscription.

Subscribe to newsletter.co.uk and enjoy unlimited access to the best Northern Ireland and UK news and information online and on our app. With a digital subscription, you can read more than 5 articles, see fewer ads, enjoy faster load times, and get access to exclusive newsletters and content. Visit https://www.newsletter.co.uk/subscriptions now to sign up.

Our journalism costs money and we rely on advertising, print and digital revenues to help to support them. By supporting us, we are able to support you in providing trusted, fact-checked content for this website.

Alistair Bushe

Editor