The Corporation of Hamilton “misleadingly” presents itself as a “beleaguered municipal authority” under attack by legislators when it actually needs to be reformed for the national good, a senior lawyer told a court in London yesterday.

Delroy Duncan KC, representing the Attorney-General and the Governor in civil proceedings brought against them by City Hall, said everyone in Bermuda had an interest in the assets in the capital city “yet a select few seek to hold on to the right to manage” them.

“This is not a case where this is a municipality that governs a locality and only the people in the locality have an interest in the assets managed by the municipality,” he said.

“This is situation where the Corporation of Hamilton manages assets that are in the interests of the entire nation and they all should have a say in how it is run.”

He urged the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Bermuda’s highest court of appeal, not to meddle with Parliament’s right to abolish municipal elections and turn the corporation into an unelected quango, if it wishes to do so.

“There is no need … to give a preferential right, to give certain people the right, to run a national asset,” Mr Duncan said.

The civil case before the Privy Council was first launched by the corporation after a municipalities reform Bill was passed by MPs in 2019.

It gave the minister responsible for the Corporation of Hamilton and Corporation of St George the power to appoint mayors and half the councillors, with the rest of the councillors chosen by a selection committee.

The legislation was subsequently rejected by senators but the Corporation of Hamilton pressed on with its constitutional claim on the basis that the Bill could be presented in the House of Assembly again and would no longer need the approval of the Upper House.

It was unsuccessful in the Supreme Court and in the Court of Appeal in arguing that it would be deprived of its property and its right to the protection of law if the Bill and parts of various associated amendment Acts came into effect.

Mr Duncan said of the lawsuit: “This is about trying to stop the will of Parliament.”

He told the committee: “If Parliament decides … that the right to a municipal election can be taken away, that’s a right that Parliament has.”

He referred to past controversies involving City Hall, including a damning report by the independent Ombudsman about a waterfront redevelopment project that found 42 instances of maladministration.

Mr Duncan said: “We say that the corporation misleadingly models itself as a beleaguered municipal authority sailing through a sea of legislative attacks, when it has been bedevilled by activities compelling a responsible legislature to ensure oversight measures are implemented in the form of the amendment acts and the reform Bill, crucial for maintaining assets that are held in the national interest.”

Earlier during yesterday’s hearing, Sir Jeffrey Jowell KC, for the corporation, said the Bill would result in “central control”.

“The minister will control the members, as opposed to now, about 600 residents and 400 ratepayers have the vote at present.”

Sir Jeffrey called it a “proposed stripping away of local democracy” and said the reform Bill was an assault on the right to freedom of expression by City residents.

“The residents exercise their right to freedom of expression by casting a vote,” he said, adding that the “purpose and effect” of the municipalities reform Bill was “clearly … to stifle the views of the local residents who presently have a vote.”

The Privy Council proceedings, before Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose, Lady Simler and Dame Janice Pereira, concluded yesterday afternoon after two days of arguments; judgment was reserved.

Lord Reed, the President of the Supreme Court, told the court: “This is a case bristling with interesting and difficult questions.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers