Sipo orders Freedom party to pay back ‘mischievous’ €101 donation

THE Irish Freedom Party was forced to pay back a €101 donation – but they claim the contribution was made deliberately to force an investigation under electoral laws.

Party treasurer Michael Leahy revealed they had asked for the money to be given to charity and that they still don’t know exactly who made the ‘mischievous’ donation.

The Irish Freedom Party is a far-right organisation with anti-immigration and anti-EU views. The saga began in May 2019 when the Standards in Public Office Commission

‘There was quite a lot of toing and froing’

(Sipo) made contact with the party saying they were investigating a payment the party had received.

‘The Commission has been made aware that a donation of more than €100 has recently been made to the Irexit Freedom Party,’ said an email, released under FOI.

In response, party director of finance Michael Leahy said they had received five donations that exceeded €100 but that none ‘constitute a prohibited donation’.

In a later email exchange, Mr Leahy said they had received one specific donation of €101.

He wrote: ‘I assume this donation was sent mischievously and I assume it was notified to you by the parties who sent it to us with a view to putting us in a situation where we would have a legal requirement to register as a third party.’

Under Sipo guidelines, a party can’t receive in excess of

€100 in a single donation unless they officially register – which the Irish Freedom Party had not at the time of the donation.

In his email, Mr Leahy said it was possible the donation was ‘prohibited’ and said they suspected those involved had registered abroad ‘in order again to make it appear as if we are acting outside of the legislation’.

In October, the Standards Commission responded to say it was up to the party themselves to ensure that any donations received were not prohibited. Brian McKevitt of the Commission Secretariat wrote: ‘This is particularly important where donations are received online. Where a third party is accepting donations through a website, it must ensure that it can properly identify the source of the donation and that it is not prohibited from accepting a donation.’

In the email, Mr McKevitt said it was not for Sipo to identify the person who had made the contribution and that was the responsibility of the party.

Mr Leahy responded to ask again if it would be possible to get the name of the ‘anonymous donor’ so he could return their money to them.

‘Alternatively, you might advise how we should deal with this money,’ he said. ‘A charitable donation to the nearest poorbox perhaps?’

In a response from December, the Standards Commission repeated that it was not their job to identify the person who gave the money and said the donation should be sent to Sipo. By May of this year, Sipo wrote again to say they had not yet received any response to their latest communication. They later received the cheque and wrote to say it would be forwarded to the Department of Finance under electoral laws.

Asked about the repayment, Mr Leahy said: ‘I certainly wouldn’t ascribe any malfeasance to Sipo – they’re doing what they are required to do. There was quite a bit of toing and froing and you begin to question what the purpose of it is. They were operating under legislation which I think is designed to make it very difficult for small parties to emerge. And I don’t blame Sipo for that.’

In a statement, Sipo said they did not comment on individual compliance matters.