A landmark ruling by Chief Justice Ian Kawaley will allow the public to have unprecedented access to sworn affirmations from developer Michael MacLean and government ministers in relation to the Hamilton waterfront deal.

The Royal Gazette, through its lawyer, Tim Marshall, argued in court that the documents that formed part of the controversial civil case between Mr MacLean and the Bermuda Government should be made available for public scrutiny.

One affidavit by Mr MacLean suggested that he was asked to pay money to Craig Cannonier, the former Premier, Michael Fahy, the Minister of Home Affairs, Mark Pettingill, the former Attorney-General and Steven DeCosta, a businessman, in return for their support of his waterfront development plans.

The three government officials, together with government lawyer Anthony Cottle, submitted counter affidavits denying Mr MacLean’s claims that were referred to in this week’s court proceedings but not detailed.

The media were previously restricted to reporting the limited references that were made to the five affirmations during court proceedings this week.

However, in a landmark decision, the Chief Justice backed The Royal Gazette’s argument and ruled that redacted copies of all the affidavits, as well as other documentation, should be made public.

The Royal Gazette has not received the affirmations, owing to continued legal wrangling, but they will be published in full when they arrive.

In his judgment, the Chief Justice said: “The appeal is allowed and the appellant is entitled to obtain redacted copies of the originating summons, the strike-out summons and the affidavits filed in relation to the latter application, all which documents were referred to in the course of a public hearing.

“There shall be liberty to apply in relation to the redaction issue, the terms of the order required to give effect to this judgment, costs and any other matters arising.

“Why, in a nutshell, do the media have a right to receive copies of documents on the court file which have been referred to in a high-profile case in a public hearing?

“That question is best answered in layman’s terms by Bermuda’s leading ‘good governance’ commentator, John Barritt, writing in today’s Royal Gazette, ‘Cats are out of the bag and the public will want to know exactly what went down. This is their government that is being talked about and called into question’.”

The groundbreaking judgment comes on the back of the latest round of legal wranglings between Mr MacLean and the Government that began on Monday in the Supreme Court.

The present case revolves around whether the “voiding” of agreements between Mr MacLean and the Corporation of Hamilton to develop the waterfront by the Municipalities Amendment Act 2013 was unconstitutional and breached his right to hold property.

Although Mr MacLean’s affidavit is largely irrelevant to the latest legal proceedings, it has become the subject of intense political and public speculation, given the serious nature of the allegations that it contains. In his judgment, Mr Justice Kawaley said: “The related proceedings are constitutional proceedings brought by a local company and a local trust, the Allied Trust and Allied Development Partners Ltd to challenge the voiding of substantial contracts entered into between the Allied Parties and the Corporation of Hamilton for the development of the Hamilton waterfront.

“The proceedings have excited considerable public attention, not least because an affidavit sworn in the related proceedings which makes serious allegations of corrupt conduct against government ministers is already in the public domain and has been discussed in Parliament.”

The Chief Justice concludes: “Based on arguments which were not placed before the registrar but which were advanced before me by Mr Marshall, both orally and in writing with considerable skill and persuasion, I find that the registrar does have a statutory discretion under section 3 of the 1955 Act to accede to the appellant’s request by letter dated July 20, 2015, for copies of the originating summons, the strike-out summons and affidavits, all of which documents were referred to in the course of the public hearing of a constitutional strike-out application.”

• For the full judgment from the Chief Justice and the judgment summary, click on the PDF files under “Related Media”.