The Corporation of Hamilton’s raft of grievances over Government’s intervention into municipal affairs have been laid out in a threat of legal action acquired by The Royal Gazette.

Parliament’s latest sessions saw a number of Corporation leases contentiously brought before MPs — with Opposition members refusing to take part in the appraisal.

The Corporation has threatened a lawsuit against both the Minister of Home Affairs and the Attorney General, calling the measures included in the Municipalities Amendment Act 2013 unconstitutional.

Requiring Government approval to make land agreements or to dispose of land constituted “a compulsory taking and/or acquisition of an interest in or right over” the Corporation’s own land — which contravened the Bermuda Constitution’s protection from the compulsory acquisitions, according to lawyer Eugene Johnston.

The letter, addressed to the Attorney General’s Chambers, cited Parliamentary debate in which Progressive Labour Party MPs attacked the Act as “merely an attempt to disturb the workings of the Corporation of Hamilton (in particular) and to undermine the sanctity of certain contractual arrangements previously entered into by the Corporation of Hamilton and specific counterparties”. The letter added: “This was not a wild claim.”

Mr Johnston accused Government of implying that there were “significant problems prevalent in the Corporation of Hamilton”.

Deputy Premier Michael Dunkley’s rationale for the Act, which Parliament approved in October, “suffers from serious flaws”, he charged.

Mr Dunkley had told MPs the Act would bring the municipalities in line with the requirements that apply to Government’s handling of Crown land, and would “affect the introduction of good governance measures as it relates to municipal land”.

Noting that the Corporation does not manage public lands, Mr Johnston said Government’s moves contributed nothing to better governance — adding: “Conversely, they work a significant injustice.”

The need for the Corporation to secure Government approval for leases also came without compensation, as stipulated under the Constitution, for the compulsory acquisition of land, he said.

The Corporation also sought to challenge Government’s ability to “retroactively invalidate” agreements — maintaining that a rejection by the legislature didn’t invalidate an agreement.

Amendments limiting the Corporation’s ability to pay Council members were also branded “a clear appropriation of Corporation of Hamilton property”.

And provisions for Government to take charge of Corporation services in the event of maladministration failed to include safeguards against “governmental abuse”, the letter charged.