Media's role in fighting corruption must be defended

Irish Examiner

3 days ago

This summer marks the 30th anniversary of the enactment of the Ethics in Public Office Act 1995. Although commended for introducing statutory disclosure obligations for designated public office holders, including politicians, and the establishment of Sipo's predecessor, its significance runs deeper. The act ended a 79-year hiatus in Ireland's anti-corruption legislation.
From the foundation of the Irish Free State, the legislation governing corruption in Ireland was housed in the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to 1916. That legislation remained unamended on the Irish statute book until 1995, when modest revisions were introduced under the Ethics in Public Office Act.
That act was introduced partly as a response to political indiscretions exposed in a number of scandals that gripped Ireland during the 1990s, including the Greencore affair, Telecom Éireann's site purchase, and the Beef Tribunal. But behind that legislative response lay another powerful force — the media.
From the 1970s onwards, investigative journalism in Ireland began to develop, which led — among other things — to the exposure during the 1990s of conflicts of interest and ethical lapses among public officials.
The media reports unearthed a culture of impunity and lack of oversight, and were significant in embedding corruption in the public discourse. The Greencore affair, for example, which arose out of the privatisation of Súicre Éireann, revealed weaknesses in the anti-corruption legislative architecture that had never been focused on before, namely conflicts between public duties and private interests.
It centred on a small number of executives who bought a 49% stake in a subsidiary of the company for £3.2m and sold it back to the State a year later for £9.5m, prompting concerns over corporate governance and abuse of trust.
Although statutory investigations found breaches of company law and corrupt practices by some of those involved, no criminal prosecutions followed. Then there was Telecom Éireann, a semi-state company, which found itself the subject of much media attention in 1991, arising from irregularities surrounding its purchase of a piece of land for use as its headquarters.
The Beef Tribunal, established in 1991, on foot of an ITV World in Action programme, would go on to reveal questionable and uncomfortably close connections between big business interests and Irish political interests.
These revelations helped shift public sentiment, fostering a climate more receptive to investigative journalism and expanding the public understanding of corruption. Before then, corruption was regarded as an overt form of bribery. This understanding was reflected in the legislation criminalising corruption, which dated back to 1889.
Events throughout the 1990s showed that corrupt behaviour could constitute more clandestine activities where private interests and public duties collided, and an awareness of the connection between conflicts of interest and corruption. This growing public awareness, aided by the media, created the necessary political pressure for reform.
The Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 was the first enacted legislative response. However, it was not the first attempt to introduce accountability into Irish public life.
Four years previously, Labour TD Brendan Howlin initiated the Ethics in Government and Public Office Bill 1991 as a private members' bill. Although the bill was defeated, its principles were incorporated into the 1995 act.
The Ethics in Public Office Act 1995 sparked a series of incremental reforms over the next 15 years, including the introduction of freedom of information laws, regulation of political donations, and the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Acts 2001 and 2010.
Running in tandem with these legislative developments was persistent media scrutiny, reporting on events that formed the subject matter of various tribunals throughout the 1990s and 2000s. The media played a pivotal role in the establishment of the tribunals.
However, its influence extended beyond this initial contribution, in that it was instrumental in informing the public about the proceedings and findings of the tribunals. The particular significance of the Moriarty, Planning, and Morris tribunals is that, for the first time, findings of corruption were made against individuals who were the subject of the investigations.
The momentum for change, driven by media vigilance and Ireland's commitments under international and European instruments such as the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery, ultimately culminated in the Criminal Justice (Corruption Offences) Act 2018.
The 2018 Act repealed Ireland's outdated corruption laws and replaced them with a unified modern framework. It introduced offences of active and passive corruption, trading in influence, knowingly giving gifts or advantages to facilitate the commission of a corruption offence, intimidation, and substantially increased penalties for corruption offences.
The legislative inertia that had persisted for most of the 20th century eventually gave way to a resurgence of reform, driven in no small way by the media's persistent focus on corruption.
As Mr Justice Humphreys recently observed, the media plays a vital role in shaping public discourse, a role that mirrors Percy Bysshe Shelley's famous description of poets as "the unacknowledged legislators of the world".
This is not to suggest that the media alone dictates policy and legislation; rather, media coverage can influence legislators' behaviour, as Ireland's experience with corruption legislation has shown.
Irish legislation is a product of the Oireachtas, which essentially comprises directly elected politicians. Dependent on public support, politicians risk losing political power if they ignore public opinion. Media reporting and commentary often guide public opinion, which in turn can influence the legislative agenda.
The evolution of Ireland's anti-corruption laws is a testament to the enduring importance of the Fourth Estate. Ireland's path towards transparency and reform may not have been so meaningful without it.
In a world facing growing threats of free-speech intimidation, protecting an independent Fourth Estate capable of speaking truth to power is more important than ever.
Gail Nohilly is a barrister and knowledge lawyer and recently completed her PhD at the University of Limerick, tracking the evolution of Ireland's corruption legislation and the role of the media.