The cartoonist Martyn Turner captured the departure by picturing Haughey at his desk reading newspaper coverage of his exit. On one side of Turner's drawing, Haughey could be seen reading the tributes paid - 'Man of vision, great parliamentarian, statesman, patriot, wit, imagination, flair, determination? Man of the People'. The outpourings leave Haughey musing: "You'd wonder why they were so keen to get rid of me?" Now we know why. Haughey departed office as the most controversial politician of his generation, if not ever, in Irish political life. But that assessment has now fundamentally changed.

Controversial has been replaced by corrupt. Last week's report from the Moriarty tribunal - following on from the 1997 McCracken tribunal report - has left Haughey as officially the most corrupt figure to have held high office since the foundation of the state.

In the D�?il debate marking Haughey's retirement in February 1992, Dick Spring, the then Labour party leader, admitted to having difficulty in "finding the appropriate words to pay tribute to a retiring political legend". Yet the words delivered by Spring, almost 15 years ago, now seem an apt prelude to the damning assessment produced in the 678-page report from tribunal chairman Michael Moriarty.

"Achievement and failure, promise and betrayal, hope and despair, idealism and cynicism, style and mediocrity, triumph and disaster. It will be up to the historians to say which are the correct measures to be applied for each of these descriptions, " Spring said.

In truth, Haughey was all of those things. But we know much more now than Spring and others knew in 1992.

We know Haughey was a kept man, he was on the take and he was corrupt.

We did not, however, need Moriarty to help us reach those conclusions. In August 1997, Brian McCracken noted that it was "quite unacceptable that a member of D�?il Eireann, and in particular a cabinet minister and taoiseach, should be supported in his personal lifestyle by gifts made to him personally". McCracken, the first tribunal chairman to investigate Haughey's finances, went as near as possible in branding the former Fianna F�?il leader a liar. "The tribunal has been unable to accept much of the evidence of Mr Charles Haughey, " he said.

If the conclusions from McCracken sullied Haughey's name and reputation, then the evidence heard in subsequent years at the Moriarty tribunal tore his legacy asunder. Much of what emerged in last week's report was well aired at the hearings at Dublin Castle.

But having all the evidence of favours and payments brought together in a single volume starkly shows the truly shocking disregard for the responsibilities of an elected office-holder displayed by Charles J Haughey.

Moriarty concludes that Haughey's lifestyle was financed by money, "derived primarily from clandestine donations, and recourse to the Leader's Allowance Account, including not merely amounts of public monies but money intended for the medical expenses of the late Mr Brian Lenihan". Haughey was no Robin Hood - he took from whoever was giving for his own enrichment. He personally gained from holding high office and also from a fund set up to save the life of his sick friend.

In the final section of the report, Moriarty delivers his coup de grâce.

Haughey, the tribunal chairman concludes, acted in a manner which "can only be said to have devalued the quality of a modern democracy". Repeat those words more than once and their import becomes even more shocking.

A man who spent 35 years as a member of D�?il Eireann, held several senior ministerial portfolios and served as taoiseach four times between 1979 and 1992 acted in a manner that "devalued the quality of a modern democracy".

This powerful soundbite will now stand alongside Haughey's own resignation quotation from Othello: "I have done the state some service; They know't; No more of that?", and Bertie Ahern's graveside eulogy: "Charles Haughey was a patriot to his fingertips."

Ahern and other defenders of Haughey highlight his role in kickstarting the economy after 1987, the birth of the Financial Services Centre, the rejuvenation of Temple Bar, assistance for artists, and financial help for pensioners. Indeed, Haughey did make a contribution, but he was not alone in the achievement of any of these policy changes. Others also played their part.

Now, however, thanks to Moriarty, we know that Haughey was centrally involved in events that darken any assessment of his ultimate legacy, the management of his financial affairs. He always professed innocence about the sources of his wealth. Those matters were left to his bagman, the deceased accountant Des Traynor.

"The tribunal cannot accept the testimony given by Mr Haughey to the effect that he knew virtually nothing of his financial arrangements, " the report states. Haughey's evidence that he never heard of the Cayman Islands before the tribunals started investigating accounts held there was deemed "unbelievable".

The chairman of the Revenue Commissioners, Frank Daly, is quoted in the initial pages of the report. "I don't think there is any case, certainly in my experience, that has had the same set of circumstances in terms of complexity, hidden secretiveness, structures designed to keep all this from our gaze." Moriarty is even more succinct in concluding that the vast majority of payments were "secretive, opaque and frequently involve off-shore vehicles".

In total - from what the tribunal could uncover - Haughey received from his benefactors money to the value of £11.5m between 1979 to 1996 - the equivalent of Euro45m in today's money. Whereas McCracken struggled to place favours alongside the cash donated, Moriarty refers to a taoiseach helping out businesspeople in return for cash.

Only last June, when Haughey died, Bertie Ahern observed that he had "no doubt that the ultimate judgement of history will be kind". It will take time and the release of the state papers from his period as taoiseach to assess Haughey's role. But thanks to Moriarty, we have an official document which shows that he was corrupt and a liar.

The seriousness of what the tribunal concludes cannot be underestimated, but its relevance today is much open to question. Voters are unlikely to be swayed at the polls next May by the activities of the late Charlie Haughey.

For most people, he is a figure from the past. He left the political stage in 1992.

First-time voters in 1992 are in their mid-30s. Few under that age connect Haughey to their lives. His political legacy is to have damaged the reputation of all politicians, not just those under the Fianna F�?il banner.

The opposition parties should not place too much store in benefiting from last week's report. Moriarty gives Bertie Ahern a slap on the wrist over his role in pre-signing cheques drawn on the Fianna F�?il party leader's account. But if, last September, a majority of people were willing to excuse Ahern for personally taking cash when he was finance minister at a still unexplained function in Manchester, then they are unlikely to be exercised about a few pre-signed cheques.

Last week's report is not the final say. There will be more information on Haughey in further reports from Moriarty which are due next year, focusing primarily on former minister Michael Lowry and the awarding of the second mobile phone licence. "Relevant recommendations are not being made at this juncture, " the chairman noted in last week's report.

The consequences of this decadelong investigation may still come, and the tribunal has some ground to make up, because last week Haughey was done one final favour from the unlikeliest of sources.

After nine years' work and at a cost of millions of euro, the Moriarty tribunal team showed itself unable to deliver its first report efficiently. The Oireachtas press office had to ring reporters to say limited copies were available from the tribunal's office at Dublin Castle on a first-come-firstserved basis. Politicians in Leinster House were left scrambling for the report - again not enough reports were available to the very people who set up the tribunal.

The ham-fisted release of the report was compounded by the timing of publication. The tribunal team showed little understanding of how to maximise the impact of its work by releasing the report on Christmas week - with the Oireachtas in recess and the public distracted by parties and planning for the festive holidays. It would have made Haughey smile.