The family of Donal de Róiste, an Army lieutenant who left the Defence Forces under a cloud, is fighting to clear his name, Don Mullan reports.

The former presidential candidate, Adi Roche, recently challenged the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, and all party leaders to provide her brother, former Army lieutenant Donal de Róiste, with the opportunity to defend his reputation and clear his name.

Ms Roche's call is in response to her brother's controversial 1969 retirement "in the interests of the service" by President Eamon de Valera.

For over 30 years, de Róiste has pleaded his innocence, claiming he was bullied and interrogated by senior officers in the Army's intelligence section, during which unspecific, unsubstantiated and mysterious allegations were used to have him dishonourably discharged. There is nothing on his public record to indicate that de Róiste was ever charged, tried or convicted of an offence that led to his demise.

The incident severed de Róiste's relationship with his father, Sean Roche, a strong supporter of Fianna Fáil and lifelong admirer of Eamon de Valera.

Adi Roche says: "My father wouldn't accept that the Irish State could callously create such an injustice against his family. He clung onto his belief in the State and, therefore, his love for his eldest son collapsed."

Sean Roche died on January 13th last without being reconciled with his eldest son.

In 1971, de Róiste emigrated to the United States, where he worked in the Pennsylvania Steel Mills. He married a US citizen, Leah Martin, with whom he had two children, Dara (25) and Sinead (23). He returned to Ireland in 1987 following his divorce. However, he has retained good relations with his former wife and children, all of whom are supporting his renewed drive to clear his name.

Following his return to Ireland, de Róiste settled into a quiet existence and tried to forget the past. He spent most of his time working on FÁS schemes and more recently drives a school bus in Cork. However, his military past came back to haunt him in a most dramatic way when, during the 1997 presidential election, his "retirement" was leaked to the press in a manner calculated to maximise damage to the presidential hopes of his youngest sister Adi. Ironically, whoever was responsible for the disclosure has succeeded primarily in reawakening de Róiste's desire to clear his name and his demise has now come back to haunt the Irish State with the development of determined campaigns at home and in the United States.

Department of Defence records suggest the only blemish on de Róiste's career was that in 1964 he was found "guilty of the serious offence of bringing two contraceptives (condoms) into the (cadet) school," for which he was confined to barracks for three months. Nonetheless, in September 1967, de Róiste was promoted to the rank of lieutenant and assigned to the Signal Corps.

Mysteriously, on June 27th, 1969, de Róiste was retired. Three days before, the Secretary to the Department of An Taoiseach, in a private letter to the Department of Defence (file reference S.17418) wrote: "With reference to the memorandum No. S.636 . . . I must inform you that the President today decided, on the advice of the Government, to retire Lieut de Róiste from the Permanent Defence Forces . . . for the reason that it is in the interests of the service . . ."

De Róiste has consistently claimed that he was never given a reason for his retirement and was never allowed to face his accusers. Significantly, he is now being denied sight of crucial files, including memorandum S. 636. At the time, he underwent a series of interviews with members of the Army's Intelligence Section. He describes these interviews as interrogations, claiming he was harassed and threatened throughout. A medical expert has concluded that de Róiste suffers from posttraumatic stress due to his experience.

In a reconstruction of an interview/interrogation, de Róiste recounts the following exchange:

Interviewer: You know why you are here?

De Róiste: No, sir.

Interviewer: Why do you think you are here?

De Róiste: Don't know, sir.

Interviewer (shouting): Do you think we are stupid?

De Róiste: No, sir.

Interviewer: Then make this easy for all of us and confess.

De Róiste: Confess what, sir?

Interviewer (pacing and shouting louder): That is for you to tell us.

De Róiste: Tell you what, sir?

Interviewer: Don't try and play the old soldier with me, lieutenant. We have people very close by here that can make you talk.

Interviewer leaves abruptly and returns some time later: Have you thought about your position?

De Róiste: What do you want me to talk about, sir?

Interviewer: That is for you to tell us.

De Róiste: Why am I here, sir?

Interviewer: Very serious allegations have been made against you.

De Róiste: Who is making these allegations, sir?

Interviewer: Security.

De Róiste: What are the allegations, sir?

Interviewer: Pay attention, lieutenant. I said that is for you to tell us. This may lead to a court martial or worse.

The nearest the young lieutenant ever got to understanding the possible reasons for his retirement came from his maternal uncle, Patrick Murphy, who, in 1969 was assistant secretary to the Minister of Defence, Mr Hilliard.

Murphy told his nephew: "They have a picture of you on the firing party for an IRA funeral."

When de Róiste asked if he had seen the picture, his uncle said no. An Irish Army source who, over the years, remained close to de Róiste and believes in his innocence, retired Comdt Patrick Walshe, told him that he, too, had heard a similar rumour from a commanding officer. When asked by Walshe if he had seen the picture, the commanding officer also said no. De Róiste vehemently denies the rumours and challenges his accusers to produce the evidence.

On July 3rd, 2001, responding to questions from TDs Bernard Allen and Alan Shatter, the Minister for Defence, Mr Smith, said: "Ex-lieutenant de Róiste was retired by the President acting on the advice of the Government . . . in accordance with section 47(2) of the Defence Act, 1954 . . . subparagraph 18(1)(f) of Defence Force Regulation A.15 which prescribes that an officer of the Permanent Defence Force may be retired . . . 'in the interests of the service'."

In 1969, the then Defence Force Regulations which govern Army procedures, as referred to by Mr Smith, did not require that an officer recommended for retirement "in the interests of the service", be given particulars of "alleged misconduct or inefficiency".

It wasn't until an amendment to the Regulations in 1985 (Amendment No.93) that the right to such information was given to an officer in de Róiste's circumstances. This deficiency in the Defence Act Regulations may have prejudiced the young officer's ability to seek fair and proper redress.

De Róiste's legal arguments to the High Court and Supreme Court between 1998-2000, while seeking access to his files, was that his rights under natural law and under the Irish Constitution required, despite the omission in the Regulations in 1969, that he be informed of the allegation(s) against him and be given a fair opportunity to defend his reputation.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Mr Smith did not make reference to this crucial amendment in the Defence Act Regulations that he cited to Mr Allen and Mr Shatter. He stated, however: "I have reviewed the papers in this case and I am satisfied that the matter was handled in an appropriate manner and that the decision was taken only after very detailed consideration. A decision of this type is only ever taken for the most compelling reasons. Given that this is a matter involving military security on which a decision was made by the President, I am not in a position to discuss it further."

Mr Shatter responded: "This is a 30-year-old matter. Why can the file not be opened?"

According to the Dáil records, the Minister made no reply.

Between 1998 and 2000 de Róiste and his current solicitor, Eamonn Carroll, sought redress in the High Court and Supreme Court in an effort to overturn the decision to retire him. De Róiste askedfor an order of discovery, hoping that the withheld files would be produced.De Róiste failed in his attempt to get access to his files on a technicality. The State's lawyers argued that de Róiste was too late making his case after 30 years and both courts agreed with this argument. Consequently, he is now forced to bring his case to the European Court of Human Rights.