Bob Richards, the Minister of Finance, has said the Bermuda Government will not have to foot the bill for his libel case against union boss Jason Hayward.

Mr Richards said the matter — which led to a succession of objections from unions and other organisations — had become a distraction from “the real issues surrounding the case”.

He added that any damages he receives will be donated to charity.

The minister filed a lawsuit in June against Mr Hayward, the president of the Bermuda Public Services Union, for comments made on a paid television broadcast on behalf of the People’s Campaign.

Mr Richards said in a statement yesterday: “I have been grateful for the Cabinet’s support of the principle of financially backing a minister of the Government when he is defending himself against defamatory comments in connection with the carrying out his of duties as minister.

“This is an important principle because if a minister did not have the means to pay legal costs to defend himself and the government did not support him, then it may become open season on that or any such minister.

“However, in my case, the government’s financial support is becoming a distraction from the real issues surrounding the case. Let it be known, therefore, that while I will continue to seek legal redress through the courts, I will not be seeking reimbursement of legal costs from the government in my legal action for defamation. Any financial damages awarded to me by the courts will be donated to charity.”

The One Bermuda Alliance came under harsh criticism for the initial decision to use taxpayer funds to finance the legal action, with the Bermuda Public Service Union, the Bermuda Industrial Union, the Bermuda Union of Teachers and the Prison Officers Association all attacking the move.

Shadow Minister of Finance David Burt said during a press conference on Thursday that the use of public funds to finance a private civil case was against Financial Instructions, noting a report by Auditor-General Heather Matthews about an incident in which forged cheques were placed in government files to implicate Premier Ewart Brown and Derrick Burgess.

He quoted the report as saying: “There is no statutory provision for the underwriting by Government of the legal cost of a Minister, servant or agent suing in a private civil action. We, therefore, considered any such expenditure to be improper and unjustified.”

Mr Burt questioned the Auditor-General’s silence in the case of Mr Richards, adding: “I would expect the same zeal from the Office of the Auditor-General in dealing with this matter of the hurt feelings of Minister Richards as that office gave to the matter of forged cheques being placed in official government files.”

In response, Ms Matthews said of the case involving forged documents: “You will recall that the Auditor-General was denied access to information by the then Attorney-General — information that would have confirmed whether the monies paid out for legal fees were for a legitimate purpose or for a private matter.

“Unfortunately, that information was not forthcoming. As a result, I concluded in the special report such expenditure to be improper and unjustified and a violation of financial instructions.

“It is important to note that the Auditor-General is unable to respond to inquiries which have not been investigated and which have not been the subject of a report presented to Parliament for tabling.”

Ms Matthews added that the Auditor-General’s office is primarily intended to audit the financial statement of government ministries and government controlled entities, although the Auditor-General is also empowered to carry out inquiries into any matter which comes to her attention relating to how a Government entity uses its resources.

“This matter may be brought to the attention of the Auditor-General by a member of the public, an MP, a Parliamentary Committee, another organisation or from within the Auditor-General’s office,” she said. “The final decision on whether to carry out an inquiry or investigation rests solely with the Auditor-General. However, in accordance with the Audit Act 1990, the conduct of financial audits takes precedence over inquiries/investigations.”