The ruling One Bermuda Alliance last night questioned the Opposition’s motives for raising the issue of historic land thefts, suggesting that the controversial issue was being used as a tool for wider political objectives.

Shadow Immigration Minister Walton Brown put forward a motion calling for a Commission of Inquiry into the matter in the House of Assembly two weeks ago. MPs voted for a Commission to be established to look at “historic losses in Bermuda of citizens’ property through theft of property, dispossession of property, and adverse possession claims” and for compensation if the claims were proved.

In an article in this newspaper last week, Mr Brown described the motion as “historic”, adding that it paved the way for “a process that could bring closure and a sense of justice to scores, if not hundreds, of Bermudian families by correcting some of the wrongs of the bad old days when justice was a fleeting illusion for many and where the rich, powerful and connected acted with impunity”.

Mr Brown pointed out that one of the more high-profile cases involved around 500 acres in Tucker’s Town which was “obtained compulsorily under the Bermuda Development Company Act 1920”.

“The scale of this practice of depriving people of their land demands closer and independent scrutiny,” Mr Brown stated.

But last night an OBA spokesman questioned why the Opposition had never addressed the issue, or sought compensation for the descendants of former property owners, during its 14 years in office up to December 2012.

And the spokesman also pointed to a 2011 debate in which PLP Government Senators expressed little interest in addressing past injustices.

According to a Royal Gazette report, that March 2011 debate centred around a Special Development Order for Tucker’s Point. When members of the then-Opposition United Bermuda Party made reference to the sensitive and historic nature of the location, then-Senator David Burt — now Shadow Finance Minister — defended the development, saying: “We are unable to undo the past but we can certainly take steps to ensure the future well-being of our people.”

And then-PLP Senator Laverne Furbert also rejected suggestions that the development was “a slap in the face to the descendants of uprooted residents of Tucker’s Town”.

According to the Gazette article, Ms Furbert replied: “I find that very strange because in my research I found that many that lived in Tucker’s Town didn’t live in Tucker’s Point property, they lived in Mid Ocean Club property.”

The report also noted that, according to Ms Furbert, many of those who sold their property in the 1920s had since died.

“In fact they do not even have a face any more. They have souls, but do not have a face,” she was quoted as saying.

Last night the OBA spokesman said the issue of historic property losses remained “a serious, unresolved and hurtful matter for many families”.

But he added: “Why the PLP is pushing the matter now instead of during their 14 years in power is a question people can ask because it raises doubts about motive

“Is it about justice or just politics? This is particularly so when you consider the statements PLP spokesmen made in defence of the their government’s 2011 Tucker’s Point SDO.

“Back then, their line of thinking was to move ahead with the SDO on land that had seen families lose their homes and properties. To that hurt, then Senator and now Shadow Finance Minister David Burt, said ‘We are unable to undo the past but we can certainly take steps to ensure the future well-being of our people’.

“So what has changed? Political needs? Mr Bean, who was a Minister in that 2011 Government, should explain why now and not then.”