Lawyer Tim Marshall yesterday called on the Commercial Court to release all of the full affirmations relating to allegations of ministerial corruption.

Mr Marshall, representing The Royal Gazette, said that documents filed in connection with the civil case between Michael MacLean and the Bermuda Government should be made available, partly because of intense public interest.

One of the affirmations 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. They strongly deny the allegations.

A ruling on the issue is expected this week, with written submissions now being prepared by the Attorney-General’s office.

Speaking on the second day of the case yesterday, Mr Marshall argued that in the spirit and intent of a constitutional order, the documents should be made available to the public through “a sensible interpretation of existing legislation”. He also cited the intense public interest surrounding the case.

Mr Marshall’s justification for disclosure of the documents was made on the basis that a hearing had taken place in public and that the documents have already been put into the public domain.

His argument centred on the wording of the constitutional statute that such court documents should not be made public “pending” a court case; Mr Marshall argued that once a court case has begun in public court, it is no longer “pending” but rather “unfolding”.

He said: “While the orthodox view might be that ‘pending’ refers to waiting for the decision of the court — we take the view that is not what that word means and that particular meaning can’t stand in the face of the constitution. We say that ‘pending’ should mean that if it is not yet before the court in the form of a hearing, but once you are in the hearing realm, then this prohibition does not catch.

“That has got to be the right interpretation that gives true effect and respect to the overriding law of the constitution. The real benefit is completely defeated if you say you can attend proceedings but, sorry, you can’t see the documents that the court and parties have seen and digested but you can try to put together through the snippets that are being referred to … that is fundamentally wrong.”

Gregory Howard, on behalf of the Attorney-General’s office, suggested Mr Marshall’s stance paved the way for a “creative interpretation of the law”, arguing it would set a dangerous precedent. He also argued that law reform was the way forward.

Mr Howard said: “There is a law reform initiative related to public access to court documents and the Attorney-General supports that in principal. There are certain matters left to be determined before implementing that initiative.

“Our position is that the law reform initiative should be given the opportunity to reach its conclusion and the court shouldn’t have its hand forced in the middle of that proceeding to doing law reform on the fly. That is our position in a nutshell.”

Chief Justice Ian Kawaley will continue to hear arguments from both sides as the week progresses and is expected to make a ruling by the end of the week.