The One Bermuda Alliance launched a campaign to smear former premier Ewart Brown in the run-up to the July 2017 General Election, it has been claimed.

Michael Scott, a former Progressive Labour Party MP and attorney-general, also decried the creation of two organisations set up to oversee an investigation into Dr Brown.

Mr Scott gave evidence at yesterday’s civil hearing in which Dr Brown alleges that the investigation was unlawful.

Lawyers for Dr Brown have argued that the activities of the Joint Investigation Prosecution Team were unconstitutional and unlawful and breached Dr Brown’s constitutional and common law rights.

They also argue that the Strategic Oversight Group, which was set up in February 2014 and had oversight of the JIPT, breached laws relating to the abuse of power because of the involvement of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney-General.

Giving evidence yesterday, Mr Scott, who stood down as an MP before the 2020 General Election, said that the creation of the SOG in 2014 under the OBA illustrated a marked difference between the two political parties.

“It struck me deeply as something very different,” he said.

Quizzed by Jerome Lynch, KC, who is representing Dr Brown, Mr Scott claimed that the One Bermuda Alliance set out to “tarnish” the PLP before the July 2017 General Election — and used Dr Brown as a scapegoat.

Asked what the atmosphere was like between the two parties, Mr Scott said: “It became politically controversial as they were nearing the end of their term.

“They adopted a campaign to smear Dr Brown — it was a campaign of smear and corruption.

“The OBA was determined to besmirch the PLP’s reputation on the back of Dr Brown and then claim that the PLP was a corrupt organisation.”

Mr Scott said that he became aware that he was also under investigation after receiving a letter from the police in 2015 inviting him for an interview.

He said that, within minutes of the interview getting under way, “it was clear that I was a target”.

Mr Scott said that the inquiry created “a pall over my political and personal life”.

He said that three very close friends turned against him when they discovered that he was under investigation and that he also lost out on a seat in the Shadow Cabinet.

The matter was eventually dropped in 2018 and no charges were filed.

Mr Scott said that the PLP had separated the positions of Attorney-General and Director of Public Prosecutions shortly after it came to power in 1997 “to ensure that the independence of the Attorney-General was preserved”.

He also claimed that the SOG was “highly controversial” and “unwieldy”, and that the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions was “corrupted by the structure of the SOG”.

Under cross-examination from Elizabeth Christopher, Mr Scott was forced to retract several statements he had made in a sworn affidavit.

Ms Christopher pointed out that the police letter inviting him to attend Hamilton Police Station also advised that he would be under caution during the interview and also suggested that he have legal representation.

She asked Mr Scott — an experienced lawyer — why he did not realise he was the subject of a police inquiry as soon as he read the letter.

Mr Scott replied that he had only “scanned” the letter’s contents.

Ms Christopher also questioned the extent to which Mr Scott had suffered professionally as a result of the investigation. Mr Scott acknowledged that even after PLP leaders had been notified that he had been cleared of any wrongdoing, they did not offer him a shadow ministry position.

He was also forced to retract his claim that the governing political party had influence on the appointment of a Director of Public Prosecutions.

While he maintained that the police investigation was improper and ultimately unnecessary, he did agree with Ms Christopher that law enforcement agencies had the authority to initiate an investigation if they had evidence of criminal activity.