Litigants claim debate on CoI report is ‘premature’
The Premier “jumped the gun” when he renewed a motion for MPs to discuss a report by the Commission of Inquiry into Historical Land Losses, it has been claimed.
David Burt told the House of Assembly last month that legal disputes about whether the commission had the authority to investigate and hear complaints were “substantially disposed of”.
However, litigants involved in civil cases concerning the CoI claimed it was premature to bring the motion back and said politicians should hold off on any debate of the report.
One of the plaintiffs, Myron Piper, shared correspondence with The Royal Gazette showing the Government was informed that his lawsuit was still active the day before the Premier made his comments in Parliament.
Mr Piper wrote to Lauren Sadler-Best, in the Attorney-General’s Chambers, on March 27 to advise that he had filed an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council, Bermuda’s highest court of appeal.
Mr Piper said: “Out of courtesy, I sent them a copy of the filing. I sent the same thing to the Speaker of the House.”
He said he did so because he had heard that the motion was going to be renewed and he hoped to prevent that.
However, on March 28, the Premier told the House of Assembly he was bringing back the motion — first tabled in December 2021 and later withdrawn “pending the disposition of various matters before the courts” — regarding the report.
“I am advised by counsel that those matters have been substantially disposed of, and as such, I am pleased today to renew this motion,” Mr Burt told the House.
Mr Piper claimed: “There are a lot of false statements in the [CoI] report regarding me that I have never had a chance to clarify or clear up. They shouldn’t go ahead with a debate because the CoI report itself is faulty.”
LeYoni Junos, of the Civil Justice Advocacy Group, said an application for leave to appeal to the Privy Council had been made for another matter concerning the CoI.
Both applications were made directly to the Privy Council after the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. As such, she said, it was “incorrect” to say the litigation was “substantially disposed of”.
Ms Junos explained that when the Court of Appeal denies leave to appeal, litigants can apply directly to the Privy Council within 56 days.
“It is an ongoing process, similar to when an appeal is made from the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeal,” Ms Junos said, adding that the Premier had renewed the motion before the expiration of the 56-day period and thus “jumped the gun, so to speak”.
She added: “We are simply following the same position that the Speaker of the House has taken all this time.
“It is now being taken to the next level; that means it could have been debated all this time, yet they have kept if off the agenda.”
The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council confirmed that an eligibility check had been passed in Mr Piper’s case, but case papers had yet to be filed.
A government spokeswoman said the Cabinet Office was satisfied that the substantive issues related to the legal disputes had been resolved.
“The case has been decided by the Court of Appeal. Leave to appeal to the Privy Council has been denied [by the Court of Appeal],” the spokeswoman said.
“No case papers have been filed with the Privy Council. It cannot therefore be said that litigation is ongoing. There is no active matter before any court.”
However, she added: “Matters dated April 7 have now been served on the Government in what appears to be a new attempt at bringing the CoI back to court.
“The matter is being reviewed and will be robustly defended if required. It should be noted that the CoI has been wrapped up for the past four years and has been operating only to the extent of defending the 2021 and 2022 challenges.
“We are reviewing the matter further, particularly on whether we should seek to strike out the proceedings. While this is a potential substantive issue now outstanding, it does not appear that this should prevent the debate considering the four years since the report was completed and given that there has been no injunction sought.”
The commission was established in 2019 to look into historical losses of property and make recommendations on compensation and justice for any victims of wrongful action.
However, a series of legal cases were brought against the CoI by Ms Junos, Mr Piper, Robert Moulder and Khalid Wasi, alleging that the commission had mishandled evidence, unlawfully restricted its remit and that members had conflicts of interests.
The matters have been winding their way through the island’s courts, with a series of hearings, judgments and appeals over the past several years.
On March 12, the Court of Appeal denied an application for leave to have the matters sent to the Privy Council, finding that the questions raised in the appeal were not suitable to be submitted to the higher court.
A little more than two weeks later, Mr Burt renewed the motion to have MPs consider the CoI report.
The Premier said the issues highlighted in the report were “critical to the full understanding of our history and to providing opportunity for often-silenced voices to be heard”.
Mr Piper claimed yesterday that debating the report now, before the litigation was over, was “their way of just sweeping everything under the rug”.
Dennis Lister, the Speaker of the House of Assembly, could not be reached for comment.
• To read the Court of Appeal ruling dated March 12, 2025, see Related Media
• 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
