While judgment has been delivered on the Commission of Inquiry into Historical Land Losses, there are still aspects under consideration. Therefore, my comments will remain within the realm of public information.

Aside from the efforts made by the deceased MP Walton Brown while under the leadership of Marc Bean, and the march on Government House this commission begins a few years later in 2019 when the Premier announced the Government is finally redressing decades if not centuries of tales and stories of unfair land grabs and theft.

There are not too many old Bermuda families that escaped connections to that saga. Whether it was the British or American armies or unscrupulous businessmen and lawyers that disrupted the lives of many people, the ripple effects of the pain and disruption linger. While in the main the vast majority of the victims appear to be Black, there were also many White persons’ lands that were taken also, particularly during the 19th-century British War Act.

In a single statement in 2019, the Premier gave hope to many families who had for years heard their grandmothers and grandfathers talk about their lands having been taken.

The first two clauses of the remit read:

1, To inquire into historic losses of citizens’ property in Bermuda through theft of property, dispossession of property, adverse possession, and/or such other unlawful or irregular means

This invites the reader to share my thought that there is nothing ambivalent about that order, and that it is clearly written by the Premier and easy to understand.

2, Collect and collate any and all evidence and information available relating to the nature and extent of such historic losses of citizens’ property

Here again, there is nothing really to figure out; just collect what is available as stated clearly, with great emphasis on the word “all”.

However, the CoI with the assistance of five lawyers on its team had concluded that the first challenge, having read the remit, was the breadth of it being so broad that it had to develop its own terms of reference. Hence, a simple word such as “historic” was reinterpreted to not mean the past but relate more to systemic circumstances.

Under this new definition of historic, it had to be ascertained by the CoI that you were victim of a systemic pattern of behaviour by banks, lawyers, realtors in a conspiratorial way such as what happened at Tucker’s Town. That kind of scrutiny drastically reduced the numbers that could pass such a test. My belief is that was deliberate so that the CoI could meet its budget.

Problem No 2: the CoI makes these new terms of reference on September 20, 2020 — two months after the applications ended in July 23 when everyone had already filed under the Premier’s remit and got shafted by a new remit, the conditions of which were known only to the commissioners themselves.

The irony, however, is this: if the CoI was misdirecting itself, why on earth would David Burt’s lawyers be in court defending the changes of the commission, which abrogated the Premier’s original and, frankly, only remit?

So will the real David Burt stand up; we need to know whether you meant what you said in November 2019 or what your lawyers argued in 2022. Which one, Mr Premier? You can’t have both ...

“That this Honourable House take note of historic losses in Bermuda of citizens’ property through theft of property, dispossession of property and adverse possession claims; And be it resolved that this Honourable House calls on His Excellency the Governor to establish a Commission of Inquiry into all such known claims and to determine, where possible, the viability of any such claims and make recommendations for any victims of wrongful action to receive compensation and justice.”

Readers, does that statement need interpretation? It sure will not for those who were victims and whose families and even generations have lived the trauma.

The plan was ambitious, yes, and dire was the need and the public expectation of relief. The Premier threw in $350,000 as a budget and told the commission to do the job in 40 weeks or more time as needed. Which was the equivalent of handing buckets of water to put out the Bermudiana Hotel fire.

I give Walton Brown and Marc Bean credit: they knew the job was big and they asked the Governor, essentially seeking a Royal Commission. They knew it would take more resources than they could afford. With a remit that had no limitations and could reach back into the 19th century, if one had the evidence.

In fact, I have one for 1857. Considered along with an unknowable amount of land claims, it requires the resource to handle it. When and on what information was the Premier convinced that this enormous task, conceived by his predecessors as very costly, that could do the same job with a few hundred thousand dollars and some change for overruns? I suggest they all knew, including the commissioners, that it was not enough.

Politicians are known to find hot-button items that sway public emotion or a parade to jump in front of; Boris Johnson comes to mind. There was an election pending and my hope is that Mr Burt could not be that disconnected from the grief associated with this issue of historical land grabs to sprinkle a few dollars and appoint a few celebrated commissioners in an attempt to appear as though he had real concern for historical land loss.

Using public instruments for political gain has been done repeatedly over the years, notably in the early 1990s when the Education Planning Team embarked on extensive education reform. The government of the day made it its election platform.

If the Premier intended to deliver his mandate, he knew enough that the mandate he ordered was broad and needed an almost unlimited budget with the requisite resources, which Bermuda could not afford. So what was he doing by giving inadequate resources and a limited time frame? How could he in 2019 predict how many persons would apply in 2020? It could be ten or one thousand claims, so 40 weeks was irrelevant unless he wanted it concluded before the next election. Otherwise, fact-gathering and corresponding evidence could have prolonged the matter to three years and more. The maths says Mr Burt never intended to fulfil his word, the proof of which is his defence of the Commission of Inquiry made by the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

This act of the Premier tore at the heart and soul of Bermuda’s much vaunted desire for justice, but on the face of it, this was a boldface $1 million lie at public expense!

It is criminal when you understand the pains of those who lost to an injustice. The Commission of Inquiry into Historical Land Losses was for them — the citizens and victims of more than 100 years of loss. It was not a toy box of tools for electioneering or political manipulation. It was a serious affair affecting people being treated unjustly. The courts are useful little instruments to dance around, and although my case was material, it was only material because the CoI misdirected itself. Its true meaning was aimed at the entire public and any citizen who had a reasonable claim would have had to face the same scrutiny from within the CoI.

Where from here? For certain, the CoI will not be making any recommendations because it is now defunct and its practice illegal. The question of matters that were expressed in open court and where they go is at the moment in the air, but tthey will be resolved. There are many other questions still in the air. We have to see through these various phases with remedies, but in the meantime, the Premier has to explain to the public why he made an about-turn from his sworn 2019 statement, which I repeat:

“That this Honourable House take note of historic losses in Bermuda of citizens’ property through theft of property, dispossession of property and adverse possession claims; And be it resolved that this Honourable House calls on His Excellency the Governor to establish a Commission of Inquiry into all such known claims and to determine, where possible, the viability of any such claims and make recommendations for any victims of wrongful action to receive compensation and justice.”

Folks, this didn’t happen and there is still an open need for it to happen.

• Disclosure of interest: Khalid Wasi submitted two complaints to the Commission of Inquiry into Historical Land Losses over allegations that he lost property through unethical, systemic and irregular practices