Sinn Féin hits back claiming Brian Stanley was told to go to gardaí during party inquiry

A party spokesperson said that Mr Stanley chose not to do this, saying: “He was advised to go to the gardaí to report this matter but chose not to. He was accompanied by his barrister and solicitor so was fully advised of his rights and entitlements.”

In a statement, the party also confirmed it received a complaint against Mr Stanley on July 26.

It comes after Mr Stanley, who rejects the initial complaint, earlier presented an alternative timeline of events than party leader Mary Lou McDonald.

The party said it contacted the complainant on August 1 outlining the procedures to make a formal complaint and “she then submitted a full statement on 2 August. This marked the official commencement of the disciplinary process” the spokesperson added.

Mr Stanley announced his resignation from Sinn Fein on Saturday, claiming he had been subjected to a “kangaroo court” after an internal complaint was made against him.

Ms McDonald has said she is “not in a position to comment” on the nature or the details of the complaint, which she insisted has been referred to gardaí out of an “abundance of caution”.

Ms McDonald said she did not know the nature of a complaint made against Mr Stanley.

In a statement this evening, the party stated that on July 29, the party leader had a brief exchange with Mr Stanley, as outlined on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland earlier today.

“In that conversation, Deputy Stanley indicated that he thought that a complaint might be made about him. The nature of the potential complaint was not discussed or disclosed. The party leader informed him that any complaint, if made, would be dealt with through the party disciplinary process.”

“Following the completion of the preliminary stage of the inquiry and report, and having taken further legal advice the party has referred both the complaint and counter allegation to the gardaí.

“It is now for the Gardaí to decide if any of the matters we have brought to their attention require further investigation,” the spokesperson added

It comes as Taoiseach Simon Harris said there is a need for all information regarding the complaint made against Mr Stanley to be made public.

Conflicting statements from Ms McDonald and the former party TD have created “another layer of confusion and lack of clarity”, Mr Harris said adding that the public have a right to know what the allegation is.

It comes after Mr Stanley accused members of Sinn Féin of orchestrating a “character assassination” against him as he said matters involving complaints should have been referred to gardai “some time” ago.

Mr Stanley made the shock decision to quit the party late on Saturday night claiming he had been subjected to a “kangaroo court” over allegations made about him from within the party.

After he resigned, Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald referred the claims made against Mr Stanley and his counter allegations to gardaí.

Ms McDonald has insisted she is not in a position to comment on any of the allegations but says she acted transparently at all times.

In a new statement today, Mr Stanley welcomed the fact the allegations have been referred to gardaí and said he already suggested this should have happened before now.

“This has been advocated by me for some time, including to a senior Sinn Féin official.

“The party should have referred it to gardaí once both myself and legal representatives brought certain serious matters to the attention of the ‘panel’ on September 11th,” he added.

Mr Stanley said Ms McDonald correctly said the complaint made against him is “not of a criminal nature” but said it is “totally incorrect” for her to suggest his personal rights were protected throughout the internal investigation.

“The complaint, which I refute, was lodged with the party on the very first day (26 July) that a 10-day nomination process opened for members such as myself to be put forward to contest the general election,” he said.

“In my case this had the effect of preventing me of having any hope of contesting it as a Sinn Féin candidate for Laois. It was received by Sinn Féin on the 26 July and I obtained written proof of this from them, he added.

Mr Stanley said Ms McDonald was wrong to suggest she found out on August 2 about the complaint.

“As a matter of fact, I made her aware in person on July 29 of it and that certain information regarding it had been circulated by party members,” he said.

“The information had been deliberately kept from me that there was a complaint or the nature of it. An ‘omerto’ (sic) was in place. One middle ranking party member instructed other members that I was not to be informed of its existence.

“In actual fact I had to get my solicitor, 6 days later, to write to the party (31 July) to ascertain what was the nature of the complaint.

“In the intervening period i.e. from July 26, the process of character assassination was well underway by a certain party clique and has continued unabated since then.

“These facts and others mean that there has been a significant abuse of process when it was brought to the attention of the Sinn Féin ‘panel’ as it was simply brushed aside.

“I stand over what I stated two days ago regarding what the party refer to as an ‘inquiry’,” he added.

Meanwhile, the Tánaiste has questioned whether or not Sinn Féin should have referred allegations surrounding Mr Stanley to gardaí earlier.

Speaking in Luxembourg, Fianna Fáil leader and Tánaiste Micheál Martin said only Sinn Féin could provide more clarity on the matter.

“The issue of an internal disciplinary hearing that subsequently gets referred to the gardaí does open up the question of should it have been referred to the gardaí in the first instance?” he said.

Public Expenditure Minister Paschal Donohoe has also described Ms McDonald’s account that she did not know the nature of a complaint made against Mr Stanley as “not really credible”.

Mr Donohoe said that it would be “appropriate” for details about Mr Stanley’s resignation to be given to the Public Accounts Committee that he chaired.

Speaking on RTE radio this morning, Ms McDonald said she was not aware of the specifics of the complaint until after Mr Stanley resigned, claiming the whole investigatory process had been at “arm’s length to the party”.

Asked about the issue today, Mr Donohoe said that while he understands legal “sensitivities”, it was “imperative” that the party was transparent.

He said Ms McDonald should clarify how she could be aware of the complaint but not aware of the nature of it.

“Sinn Féin need to explain how their leader can claim that she was aware of an issue but didn’t know what the issue was. How can that be credible?

“That leads us to ask the question – did she not ask, and if not, why not? And if she did ask but didn’t get an answer, why did that happen too? These are really serious questions that cut the leadership approach of a party that is still aspiring to lead a government.

“You can be impartial and informed at the same time, being aware of an issue doesn’t mean you undermine the impartiality of how that issue is being dealt with, and the defence that ‘I didn’t know’ isn’t really credible if making the case for a different way in how politics can be conducted.”

He added: “At the same time, why is it that only as this matter was about to become public, that it was finally (referred) to An Garda Síochana. Why did that not happen in any of the other weeks leading up to the developments of this weekend?

“Is it because Sinn Féin believed their own party procedures are more important?”

Mr Donohoe said that members of the Public Accounts Committee had indicated that they want the “key facts” about the issue before the expected decision by Sinn Fein to remove Mr Stanley as chairman.

“That appears to me to be a very appropriate way before a final decision is made,” he said.

He added that statements due to be made in the Dáil tomorrow afternoon would be vital for transparency.

“It provides a very important opportunity for full transparency to be brought to this issue and for the very serious questions at the heart of this to be answered.”