The Government of Bermuda has, since 2009, pursued a “programme which seeks to diminish the role” of the Corporation of Hamilton, a court in London heard yesterday.

Constitutional lawyer Lloyd Barnett, representing the municipality in its legal attempt to stop the Government from turning it into an unelected quango, made the claim before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Bermuda’s highest court of appeal.

Dr Barnett outlined the centuries-long history of the municipality, explaining why it was formed and how it was “very much in the vanguard of the democratic development” of the island.

He said both the Corporation of Hamilton and the Corporation of St George had served their municipalities well, but their power and ability to perform their functions as elected local government bodies had been eroded in recent years.

Dr Barnett alleged: “Over the last 15 years, the central government has embarked on a programme which seeks to diminish the role and responsibilities of the corporation [of Hamilton].”

He said legislative amendments the Government had already made and changes it planned to make by abolishing municipal elections would infringe City Hall’s fundamental rights under the Bermuda Constitution to “property, due process and freedom of expression”.

The appeal before the Privy Council came after the Corporation of Hamilton was earlier unsuccessful in both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal with its constitutional claim that it would be deprived of its property and its right to the protection of law if a municipalities reform Bill became law.

It launched the litigation after the Municipalities Reform Act 2019 was passed by MPs, though the legislation did not get past the Upper Chamber because independent and opposition senators voted against it.

The Bill could now be brought back to the House of Assembly and implemented without the approval of the Senate.

The lawsuit aims to stop that from happening but, so far, lawyers for City Hall have failed to convince the courts that the legislation is unconstitutional.

A key issue under discussion yesterday morning was a preliminary point about whether the corporation was afforded the fundamental rights and freedoms in chapter 1 of the Bermuda Constitution, which would thereby enable it to pursue its case.

Delroy Duncan KC, representing the respondents — the Attorney-General and the Governor — argued that as a publicly funded body with no private investment, it did not benefit from those rights.

However, Dr Barnett said: “You cannot say that because you are a municipal corporation, a right can be abolished or restricted.”

Ronald Myers, also for the corporation, said the constitution did not limit who benefited from those rights, it merely referred to “persons” and that term applied to corporations as well.

Former Chief Justice Narinder Hargun wrote in his March 2021 judgment on the matter: “The court reminds itself that its jurisdiction in relation to Acts of Parliament and proposed legislation is limited to considering whether the legislation infringes fundamental rights and freedoms set out in sections 2 to 13 of the Bermuda Constitution.

“Beyond that the merits of any legislation belong to the realm of politics and are not the proper subject matter of judicial determinations.”

He dismissed City Hall’s claim that the corporation would be deprived of its property or that there had been a breach of its right to the protection of law.

The Court of Appeal later came to the same conclusion.

The Privy Council proceedings will continue today before Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lady Rose, Lady Simler and Dame Janice Pereira.

The panel is expected to reserve judgment at the end of today’s session.

• 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