It's open season on the messengers. On Thursday in the Dail, Caoimhghin O Caolain abused the privilege rule to launch an unwarranted attack on Kennedy.

"I believe Geraldine Kennedy, the former Progressive Democrats deputy and editor of the Irish Times, advised the former Tanaiste of what was coming down the tracks in this regard and that was what influenced her decision [to quit], " O Caolain claimed.

He was accusing Kennedy of an astounding breach of ethics on the day that the latter was appearing at a tribunal for rigorously maintaining her ethics. His motive was unclear, but it was high time he said something that wouldn't bore the pants off the country.

O Caolain's clowning around passed without comment. That in itself is indicative of the attitude in the corridors of power to those who broke the story that shook the government.

On 21 September, the Irish Times published the story about Ahern and his benefactors. The only document referred to in Keena's story was a letter the tribunal sent to Dave McKenna, one of the 12 apostles who whipped around to give Bertie a dig-out.

Somebody leaked the letter. Who could it be now? Speculation ranged across the prairies of public life. The opposition.

A rogue element within the PDs. Mary O'Rourke hinted darkly of a source "closer to home". Suddenly, there was a search for remnants of the country 'n' western alliance.

The leaker was psychologically profiled. He or she was a sinister being, intent on wreaking havoc, wrecking lives, embarking on a witch hunt. "I don't want to take anybody's character but somebody took mine, " the Taoiseach cried.

There was another possibility. The leaker may be a cluedin Josephine Citizen, who determined that it was in the public interest that this stuff be exposed. Unlikely, but possible.

To the casual observer . . . and most people who engage with tribunals now do so on the most casual basis . . . the leak had to have originated with McKenna, or somebody within the tribunal, the receiver and sender of the missive.

Since McKenna is Bertie's buddy, he would be highly unlikely to do it. That left the tribunal. And if tribunal personnel did leak, then it would be for sinister motives.

Over the last fortnight, word has been carefully passed around that the tribunal was responsible. On Thursday, Ahern told the Dail: "It is clear that the file and all the information I gave to the tribunal is in the hands of at least one newspaper". This carries an obvious inference. Whatever about the odd letter, nobody but the tribunal would have access to an entire file. There is no evidence to support his statement.

The only element of his file that has shown up in the press has been the McKenna letter. Ahern, it would appear, was merely engaging in a spot of muck-spreading.

On the same day, junior minister Noel Treacy told Newstalk:

"The tribunal is leaking like a sieve and everybody knows who's doing it".

The tribunal-as-villain scenario fits together nicely for Ahern and his supporters. The tribunal is to blame. It can't be trusted. It has turned sinister on the democratically elected leader of the country.

There is also the matter of Ahern's High Court challenge to the tribunal's order to produce the financial details of his marital separation. How could he be expected to hand over documents if the tribunal has the retentive qualities of a sieve?

Meanwhile, back in the real world, the likelihood is that the leak was sprung far from the tribunal. Since its inception, the planning tribunal, and its cousin Moriarty up the yard in Dublin Castle, have been the subject of numerous legal challenges.

Most of these have originated with witnesses, usually wealthy men who, no doubt, have nothing to hide but are determined to assert their constitutional rights on principle. The result has been procedures that are long, arduous and involve the generation of forests of paper. Every document must be circulated to everybody whom it might affect in the most innocuous way. With such large traffic of paper, the potential for leaks is enormous.

As Mahon himself said last Thursday. "Since the commencement of this inquiry, persons to whom documents have been sent on strict terms of confidentiality have seen fit to breach that confidentiality by disclosing the information and documents to the press." Their motivation, he suggested, "has not been a desire to serve the public interest, but rather their own private interests".

One example of a leak that might fall into that category occurred last August. The Sunday Independent published a story saying Bertie Ahern would be criticised in the forthcoming Moriarty tribunal report for signing blank cheques for Charlie Haughey. A source close to Ahern was quoted as saying he was "not unduly worried" by it.

There is little doubt but that that leak was perpetrated to benefit Ahern. The leaking takes the heat out of the criticisms in Moriarty's report when it is delivered. There is no evidence that Ahern knew of the leak, or sanctioned it, but a source close to him saw fit to comment on it.

So who leaked from Mahon? It could have been somebody who happened across the letter in a solicitor's office. It could have been somebody in the Law Library. It could have been lying around. Lawyers are notoriously leaky.

The volume of traffic has led to some sloppiness at the inquiry. A letter for Geraldine Kennedy's eyes only was faxed to the Irish Times newsroom, a junction accessible to dozens of journalists. But the inference that the tribunal deliberately leaked it is reckless, particularly coming from government sources.

The tone of Mahon's ruling on Thursday suggests he and his fellow members are extremely perturbed that the tribunal is being painted as a sinister, leaky boat.

"Any suggestion that the tribunal was acting to single out or damage the interest of any particular individual or group is without foundation, " Mahon said. "Any person who maintains the contrary, in the absence of any evidence whatsoever to support their belief, does considerable harm to the good standing of the tribunal."

So what does he do? Who gets it in the neck?

The sensible option would have been to refer Kennedy and Keena's cases to the DPP for breaching the tribunals of inquiry acts.

A fine would have been the most likely outcome.

Instead, Mahon referred them to the High Court. An order will be issued. A circus will ensue. The journalists will be dragged in again. They will stay schtum again. The letter has been destroyed so they can't produce it. They will then be referred to the High Court for contempt. A jail sentence may result.

To what end? The order will do nothing to further inquiries into the leak. But it will demonstrate that Mahon and his colleagues take confidentiality seriously. The tribunal will hit back at the wild accusations of Ahern and his ministers. In parliament, the government fast-tracks legislation that will allow it to shut down tribunals. And while these two agencies of state bicker, the messengers await their fate.