An affirmation by developer Michael MacLean outlining allegations of ministerial corruption has been branded “scurrilous” and “without substance” by the lawyer for the Bermuda Government.

Mr MacLean’s affirmation was referred to and parts were read out yesterday by the Government’s lawyer, Monica Carss-Frisk QC, as she told Chief Justice Ian Kawaley the allegations had been vehemently denied in affidavits before the Commercial Court.

Ms Carss-Frisk further stated the claims were “not relevant” to the proceedings before the civil court that revolve around whether the “voiding” of agreements between Mr MacLean and the Corporation of Hamilton over plans to develop the waterfront was unconstitutional.

In the present hearing, Mr MacLean is fighting a government move to strike down certain of his constitutional challenges to the voiding of the agreements on the basis that they are an abuse of process and made out of time. Referring to Mr MacLean’s affirmation, Mr Justice Kawaley said: “I am not sure I will be easily convinced that this evidence will have anything to do with the present application.”

He acknowledged that the affidavits made in response to Mr MacLean’s allegations were “crystal clear in their rebuttal”.

Mr Maclean’s 16-page sworn statement alleges 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.

Referring to Mr MacLean’s affidavit, Ms Carss-Frisk said: “The recent evidence produced by the applicant makes allegations that can only be properly described as scurrilous.

“The court will have seen detailed responses by the relevant individuals staunchly and robustly denying all allegations.

“Looking at that evidence, one sees it entirely lacks substance and credibility. Finally, speaking as far as this application to strike out, that evidence is not relevant.”

Ms Carss-Frisk noted that Mr MacLean’s affirmation had been put into the public arena and revealed that the Government’s legal team had also filed an affirmation by Anthony Cottle, a former government lawyer, with the court yesterday morning.

For legal reasons, the media are not permitted to print the full details of any of the affidavits, other than any part that has been told to the open court.

The Royal Gazette asked the Government’s legal team for copies of the counter affidavits and that of Mr Cottle, but was not provided with the documents. This newspaper also asked the applicants’ attorneys for a full set of the two affirmations filed by Mr MacLean and referred to in yesterday’s proceedings, but the request was denied.

Referring to Mr Cottle’s statement that was made in London and submitted yesterday, Ms Carss-Frisk said: “It is another extremely robust denial of what has been said against Government by someone who does not have an axe to grind.”

Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, representing The Allied Trust and Allied Development Partners, said Mr MacLean’s affirmation concerning the allegations made against the three parliamentarians was submitted to provide background and that the applicants had “no part whatsoever” in putting the information into the public domain.

Mr MacLean’s affirmation was filed at the beginning of this month, together with exhibited messages and taped conversations.

“If one looks at the various messages and transcripts, there is nothing there that actually corroborates what Mr MacLean is saying,” Ms Carss-Frisk said.

The government lawyer referred to one specific audio recording, saying: “His trump card is a reference to a discussion about a number. When one reads these paragraphs, it is abundantly clear that the reference to the number in no way refers to any conversation of improper payments. It is simply a number that the applicants might be willing to settle their claims for relief.”

Mr Justice Kawaley added: “This is all about what Government is likely to give to applicants in a settlement for the voiding of the agreements.”

Ms Carss-Frisk told the court: “Mr MacLean has suggested that various individuals began to make improper demands on December 22, 2012. That is the day after ministers Fahy and Pettingill were appointed to the Government.

“The idea that we have this group of people that have just been elected and within a day are thinking to themselves ‘we can now start to make these demands’ is utterly ludicrous.

“Mr MacLean says that suggestions of improper payments were being made over two years repeatedly. If he is setting out to record things for his own protection, which he says he was doing, why on earth has he not been able to achieve anything in what is taped that actually supports his story?

“This is a complete fabrication and has been put in a desperate attempt to divert attention from what this application is all about. It also appears that someone at least has an ulterior purpose in circulating these matters outside the courtroom.”

•It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding active court cases. This is to prevent any statements being published that may jeopardise the outcome of that case.