A long-awaited report on the governance of the City of Hamilton can now be revealed, including an investigation of the Corporation’s handling of its secretive waterfront development deal.

Bermuda Ombudsman Arlene Brock had pledged to deliver her report to Parliament — but had been held back by a judicial order, after the Corporation sought to challenge her inquiry in court.

Last night, Puisne Judge Stephen Hellman dismissed a move by the Corporation to quash Ms Brock’s own-motion investigation as improper.

However, the Corporation’s application for leave to request a judicial review of her probe was not dismissed in its entirety: other legal concerns raised by the Corporation will be heard at a date yet to be fixed.

In the meantime, the injunction against the Ombudsman sharing her findings has been lifted.

At the centre of the case is the Corporation’s secret signing of a 262-year lease for developers to redesign the city’s waterfront — executed behind closed doors and announced at the start of this year.

Asked by The Royal Gazette when she intended to present the report to MPs, an elated Ms Brock declined to comment as aspects of her case are still to go before the Supreme Court.

Noting that Government and the Corporation of Hamilton were “at loggerheads” over the waterfront lease, Mr Justice Hellman made repeated reference to a “grand conspiracy theory” hinted at by the City.

Lawyer Eugene Johnson argued that the passing of the Municipalities Act in October, allowing Government to review decisions made by the Corporation, caused the Corporation to suspect that Ms Brock’s report would be used by Government to take over the project.

Representing the administrative team of Mayor Graeme Outerbridge and deputy Donal Smith, Mr Johnston told the court that the publishing of a flawed report would leave lasting and damaging allegations against them.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Hellman noted that in the wake of the Act, the Corporation feared that a report finding “malfeasance” would give Government “a pretext to intervene in Corporation affairs — in particular, the stewardship of the Hamilton Harbour development”.

Mr Johnston had tried to argue that the Corporation had delayed its application for judicial review because the ramifications of the report had only recently become clear.

However, under law, a six-month window exists to request leave to apply — and Ms Brock had voiced her intentions to the Corporation in a March 19 letter, nearly eight months ago.

Mr Justice Hellman said he couldn’t find a compelling reason to allow an extension.

Ms Brock’s report was already delayed by contempt of court charges against Mr Outerbridge and Mr Smith, he noted — and the City never launched its claim for a judicial review during those proceedings.

“It’s no small thing to restrain the Ombudsman from publishing a report,” Mr Justice Hellman said, pointing out that it would probably take months before an application for review could be heard.

As for the investigation itself, he told the City’s side: “You’re asking the court, in effect, to micromanage how the Ombudsman should carry out an investigation.”

Mr Johnston maintained that the Ombudsman failed to set out clear grounds for the case, and had not engaged in a preliminary investigation to determine its merit.

“It’s not enough to investigate malfeasance generally,” he said. “What must be done is identify the administrative actions that form the subject of the investigation.”

He also argued that specific complaints had been made to the Ombudsman’s office by City Councillor Larry Scott, who was present last night in the courtroom alongside Mr Smith and Mr Outerbridge.

“What we do know is that he made complaints about the inner workings of the Corporation of Hamilton, on how it conducted meetings and about transparency,” Mr Johnston said.

“Our position is that when someone comes to the Ombudsman like that, it would mean that the Ombudsman has certain functions that she has to exercise. None of that was done. Instead we had a statement that the Corporation entered into an acrimonious relationship with Government, and then demands for certain paperwork.”

Ms Brock’s lawyer, Alex Potts, noted that the Corporation initially welcomed Ms Brock’s investigation — but the relationship swiftly deteriorated, until a July 24 letter from the Mayor and Deputy Mayor challenged its validity.

“The grand conspiracy is up and running by that stage,” Mr Justice Hellman said.

However, he also said the conspiracy theory “sounds, on the face of it, far-fetched”.