Former Ulster Unionist Party leader Sir Reg Empey said some senior DUP figures “need to consider their positions” following revelations they met with Sinn Fein in the early 2000s.
The DUP repeatedly denied sitting down with Sinn Fein prior to the day before Ian Paisley met with Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in March 2007 when they agreed to power-sharing.
Rev Harold Good, a former president of the Methodist Church, had for years been facilitating secret meetings between senior republicans and loyalists.
In his new memoir In Good Time, written with former Belfast Telegraph journalist Martin O’Brien, he reveals how Jeffrey Donaldson agreed to discreetly meet with Martin McGuinness at the churchman’s home in the early 2000s.
The cleric explains how these talks expanded to include senior DUP man Timothy Johnston and party veteran Sammy Wilson, with the late Ian Paisley kept apprised by phone.
For many years one of the DUP’s central policies was refusing to talk to Sinn Fein, and it would have been damaging if news of the secret discussions got out.
Lord Empey, who led the UUP from 2005 to 2010, hit out at the DUP over the revelations.
“Some senior DUP figures, both past and present, need to consider their positions,” he said.
“The revelations in Rev Harold Good’s book, combined with evidence from local journalists, has exposed a sordid tale of deliberate deception of the electorate by the DUP between 2004 and 2007.
“While always supportive of attempts to bring about or maintain peace, the goings on during those years owed more to furthering a DUP political agenda rather than bringing about stability.
“People were misled, deliberately, and it could not possibly have been rogue behaviour by a few individuals.
“The DUP is a highly centralised party, and there is no way such senior figures were meeting with Sinn Fein multiple times without the knowledge of the leadership.
“Their 2007 election manifesto specifically ruled out talks with terrorist representatives. They knew this was a falsehood.”
Lord Empey said that “political gain” can only have been the motivation for the clandestine talks.
“The question now is which other senior figures knew about these secret talks?” he added.
“Did they too go along with the cover-up and deception or are we to believe that they only learned about all of this in recent days?
“Just like Sinn Fein has had to be dragged, kicking and screaming, to tell the truth about its failures and deception over the abuse of children scandal, so I suspect that the DUP will continue with a cover up and attempt at distraction, rather than ‘fess up’ to its untruths.
“It is chilling that this same pattern of behaviour was on display earlier this year when they went back into Stormont under the terms of the discredited Donaldson deal. It seems elements in that party are strangers to the truth.”
In response, DUP MP Gregory Campbell said the party’s focus was on the future.
“Unlike Lord Empey, the DUP forced republicans to engage in decommissioning before entry to government and forced Sinn Fein to support the police, courts and rule of law,” he said.
“The DUP’s goal has always been to make progress and build a better Northern Ireland.
“That will continue to be our focus. While others may wish to spend time complaining about problems, we’ll spend time trying to sort the problems.
Meanwhile, TUV leader Jim Allister accused the DUP of “brazenly lying for years to its members and the public” about not holding secret talks with Sinn Fein.
“Little wonder the DUP struggles with public credibility,” he said. “Unionist people deserve to be treated with respect and honesty, not lied to.”
But, again responding, Mr Campbell said Mr Allister was more interested in attacking fellow unionists than keeping pressure on Sinn Fein.
Previously, in response to the claims in Rev Good’s book, the DUP did not deny party figures met with Sinn Fein before March 2007.
While not specifically naming Sinn Fein, a spokesperson said that “as part of that wider process some individual members of the party did accept invites to meetings, facilitated by third parties, to see whether there was sufficient common ground to reach an agreement”.