Only Human Rights Commission chairman Rev. Goodwin Smith can clear up the ongoing dispute between the Hardell Group and Development and Opportunity Minister Terry Lister, said former Progressive Labour Party public relations officer Corey Butterfield yesterday.

But the dispute looks likely to end up in open court with the very real possibility of Mr. Lister taking the stand as a hostile witness for Hardell.

At a press conference yesterday, Mr. Butterfield, flanked by members of his family, reiterated his support for the party and the current Government, just days after being unceremoniously dumped by the party's leadership.

He also made it clear that his ouster could only be as a result of his role in the dispute. And he said that he was yet to receive any official statement from the party as to his position.

"I think our current leadership is working extremely hard for this Country. This Government is strong," said Mr. Butterfield, Hardell's general manager. "What we need, though, is to do more listening."

Rev. Smith, declined Mr. Butterfield's invitation "to begin the healing process", saying the dispute had no business being in the glare of public scrutiny at the moment. "Sometime later we will make our side known," he told The Royal Gazette.

The Hardell Group, a media company, went public with their differences with the Minister in mid-March, alleging that Mr. Lister had improperly interfered with a complaint before the Human Rights Commission.

The complaint, which involved racial discrimination allegations against the Bank of Bermuda, was dismissed by the Commission after it had already made a recommendation to the Minister that it should go to a Board of Inquiry, said Hardell.

PLP party chairman Neville Tyrell denied this week that the ouster of Mr. Butterfield had anything to do with the Hardell dispute. But Mr. Butterfield said yesterday that was the only issue on the table.

And he missed two Central Committee meetings at which the issue was discussed. "You never know what can happen when you miss a Central Committee meeting," he quipped.

Mr. Butterfield said he was not concerned that the dispute would damage the party in any way. The PLP, he said, "will no doubt rise above this. What I'm most concerned about is what it says about the social conscience in this Country."

He added : "I do not mean any racial offence but the bank's directors are predominantly white and what is most unfortunate is that now the bank is sitting back watching a black company fight a black Government."

He later said all attempts were made to resolve the issue internally and going public and taking the judicial route was a last resort for the company. "I was told that resolving it internally would give the appearance of corruption so they wanted it dealt with in judicial form," he said.

Hardell has claimed that the dismissal of the complaint was not an administrative error but improper interference by the Minister. The company was able to obtain a consent order early this month from the Supreme Court binding the Commission to reopen the case.

But days later Hardell was accusing the Minister of trying to ruin Mr. Butterfield's political career by lobbying the party leadership to sanction him. And Hardell and the Human Rights Commission could not agree on where exactly the case should be reopened.

The "fiasco", as Mr. Butterfield described the saga, had already cost Neville Darrell his position as Executive Officer at the Human Rights Commission.

Continued on Page 2

Mr. Darrell said in an affidavit filed at the Supreme Court last week that he was pressured by the Minister and, later, by the Director of Human Affairs Kenneth Dill, to dismiss the case even though the Commission had already recommended that the Minister set up a Board of Inquiry to hear the matter.

Mr. Darrell, in his affidavit, said the Minister improperly interfered with the affidavit, causing it to be unfairly dismissed. But he decided to take responsibility for the complaint, he said, in an attempt to "restore faith and trust in the Commission and also to provide me with an opportunity not to work with the Minister any further because I believe he acted against the equity interest of a citizen and against the spirit of the Human Rights Act which I am committed to uphold".

Mr. Darrell made it clear yesterday that he had no idea that his affidavit was going to be media fodder. "I have co-operated by giving my affidavit to the court to assist and have no comment to make at this time," he said. "I really believe this matter should be dealt with in the court."

While all the other key players connected to the Commission have also maintained a public silence on the matter, saying only that the Commission's integrity will survive intact, there are hints that the Commission's position is simply that a procedural mistake was made.

"Every individual makes mistakes and if the Human Rights Commission has made one, I don't think it will tarnish its character in the least," said Rev. Smith. "When we hear the whole story, it will be a whole lot of nothing."

Earlier this month, acting executive officer David Wilson expressed almost identical sentiments when he said the Commission's integrity would not be damaged "if there has been a procedural cock-up".

And yesterday Attorney General Lois Browne Evans wouldn't comment specifically on the case since her office was representing the Commission. But she said: "Usually with these cases with a lot of publicity you'll normally find a hollow ring to them in the end."

Mr. Butterfield said he wants Rev. Smith to confirm that he had written to the Minister recommending the case be heard before a Board of Inquiry. The Supreme Court, after meeting in chambers yesterday, has given the Commission 14 days to respond to Hardell's contention that the case should be reopened by going straight to the Board of Inquiry. The Commission wants to start from scratch.

"The consent order is not being adhered to at present,'' Mr. Butterfield told the media yesterday. "We may have to go to court." That would be an open court hearing with the Commission as respondent and Mr. Lister may be called upon to testify, among other things, that he received a letter from the Commission recommending a Board of Inquiry hearing. "I will be subpoenaing him without question, if it goes that far," said Hardell's lawyer Michael Smith, who confirmed last night that a resolution still had not been hammered out.