Premier Dr. Ewart Brown's decision to shut down debate on further concessions for the Coco Reef Resort marks a shocking low in how the Government is running roughshod over the rights of the House of Assembly.

It should be clear that although it was Speaker of the House of Assembly Stanley Lowe who agreed on Friday to put the controversial concessions order to a vote without further debate, this was Dr. Brown's decision.

That is substantiated by the fact that Dr. Brown could confidently state that he will do the same thing whenever accusations of corruption or impropriety are raised.

To be sure, Dr. Brown must feel aggrieved to be constantly faced with allegations of corruption, but there was a simple remedy on Friday.

He could have called a point of order and asked Opposition Leader Kim Swan to substantiate his claim that the concessions order was "payback" for election support or to withdraw it and apologise.

In fact, the whole Coco Reef situation is worthy of debate. Many of the facts are on the record. The former Elbow Beach general manager was given the lease for the old Stonington Beach Hotel after at least one other group – the owners of the Harmony Club and other local properties – also entered a bid. Once Mr. Jefferis was granted the lease, it was rewritten with more favourable terms, including extending the term of the lease from 21 to 50 years.

That lease was heavily criticised by Auditor General Larry Dennis, who said it had been so radically changed that it should be re-tendered.

Now, five years later, just as Mr. Jefferis is due to start paying $200,000 a year in "base rent", he is getting further tax concessions on top of a special development order to add more units to the property.

Furthermore, this newspaper reported in 2004 that Mr. Jefferis had paid for the services of Progressive Labour Party political consultant Roy Boyke in the 1998 general election, although no allegations have been made about who paid for his work in 2003 or 2008.

So, given its tangled history of this deal, the Opposition is perfectly entitled to question this deal, not least because the land belongs to Government.

By ending the debate, Dr. Brown looks both defensive and anti-democratic. For those who are always prepared to believe the worst of Dr. Brown, this episode will add to the belief that the Premier has something to hide.

For the rest of the community who are willing to give the Premier the benefit of the doubt, this is simply a bad day for democracy.

Dr. Brown said he came to the House of Assembly prepared to debate the order, but that does not mean that he has the right to set the terms of debate.

And every MP has the right to raise issues of concern. The reason they have privilege is so that they can raise controversial issues without fear of legal action or worse. But it is not an unlimited right; they need to be able to back up their statements or face censure.

By shutting off debate in this way – and saying he will continue to do so in the future – Dr. Brown makes a mockery of Parliament's rights and freedoms and debases Bermudian democracy.

What's next? What other areas will Dr. Brown decide are unsuitable for debate? A dangerous precedent has been set.