Dear Sir,

Forget all the recent toing and froing over the Ombudsman.

I know a little something about this subject and the only germane question in the controversy is whether the Ombudsman “overreached” her authority in conducting an investigation into an immigration complaint that was reported in her 2014 Annual Report.

If she did not, then it’s game on for critics of the Government. If she did, then the Government was within its rights to disagree and challenge her findings.

Let’s look at the 2004 Ombudsman Act. What does it have to say on the matter?

Section 6, Clause 3 says the Ombudsman is not authorised to undertake any investigation that relates to any action or matter specified in the “Schedule” of the Act.

That schedule, which carries the title “Actions Not Subject to Investigation”, specifies that the Ombudsman may not investigate “any administrative action taken by the Cabinet or by the minister or by the junior minister”. It is clear to me that the Ombudsman was investigating an administrative action taken by the minister responsible for immigration.

If there was any doubt in the Ombudsman’s mind about her authority to investigate the matter, Section 5, Clause 4 of the Act could have helped her figure it out. It says: “If a question arises about the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate a case, the Ombudsman ... may apply to the court for an order declaratory of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.”

On the basis of the above references, it is clear the Ombudsman was acting beyond her authority and that her immigration investigation was an “overreach”.

I’m not sure who orchestrated the Ombudsman groups to express their concerns to the Speaker of Bermuda’s House of Assembly, but on the basis of my reading of the Ombudsman Act, their criticisms were misguided.

Sincerely,

JAKE OF PAGET