Ewart Brown, the former premier, was named in five contracts where the Commission of Inquiry pointed to “possible criminal activity”.

Commissioners said they support police continuing to investigate the contracts for advertising firm GlobalHue, Ambling consultancy and TCD emissions testing, as well as the revamping of Port Royal Golf Course and Heritage Wharf cruise ship pier development.

Dr Brown, who was premier for the Progressive Labour Party between 2006 and 2010, was noted for his involvement in all five projects.

He was further mentioned for the building of the Magistrates’ Court and Hamilton Police Station, but the Commission said it could not agree whether possible criminal activity had taken place with respect to Dr Brown.

Contracts involving the former premier which Commissioners referred to police were:

• A $14 million advertising contract, awarded in 2009 to GlobalHue, a company run by Dr Brown’s friend Don Coleman. The Commission said money would have been saved if the contract was tendered.

• Ambling consultancy firm, hired for $3.2 million in 2008 and 2010, to provide consultancy services for planning, engineering and hotels. The Commission said there are no coherent records of any services they performed.

• The vehicles safety and emissions testing programme, given to Bermuda Emissions Control Ltd as the personal choice of Dr Brown between 2005 and 2009. The former premier’s cousin, Donal Smith, was marketing director for BECL. Dennis Correia, a close friend of Dr Brown, was a director and shareholder in both BECL and Correia Construction, the company which built the TCD centres.

• Port Royal Golf Course, initially valued at $7.7 million but ended up costing an extra $17.8 million between 2007 and 2009, which had an “inappropriate level of financial oversight”.

• The Heritage Wharf cruise ship pier development carried out by Correia Construction, which cost $60 million — $21 million more than the original contract signed in 2007.

In four of the five projects, Commissioners noted how responsibility for oversight had shifted from the Ministry of Works and Engineering to Dr Brown’s Ministry of Tourism and Transport.

They said of the Ambling deal: “This is another contract that should sensibly reside in the Ministry of Works and Engineering, but was moved by the premier to tourism and transport.”

Dr Brown declined to give evidence during the Commission of Inquiry hearing last November, with his lawyer Jerome Lynch, QC, arguing his right to claim privilege against self-incrimination as police investigations continue.

Commissioners reflected in their report that: “We had to refer to the authorities any evidence we may find of ‘possible criminal activity’.

“It might be said that by claiming the privilege, the witness effectively has admitted that ‘possible criminal activity’ might be revealed by his answer, but we do not go that far.

“We have proceeded on the basis that there must be some evidence of ‘possible criminal activity’ which is separate from and independent of the claim for privilege, and if there is, the witness’ claim neither adds to the weight of that evidence nor detracts from it, although his evidence might have added to it if he had answered the question and denied that he was guilty of any offence.”

Dr Brown has been the subject of police investigations into claims of corruption for nearly six years, and a civil lawsuit filed by the Bermuda Government against the Lahey Clinic accuses him of ordering excessive and unnecessary diagnostic tests via his local medical practices.

He has dismissed the allegations as politically and racially motivated. He has complained that the Commission included only one black member and was not represented by any black members of the Bermuda Bar.

“The major purpose of the Commission, contrary to its stated raison d’être, was to create a cloud of uncertainty over the PLP by subjecting former PLP leaders to a court-style inquiry into matters that were eight or nine years old,” Dr Brown said in a statement earlier this month.

• On occasion The Royal Gazette may decide to not allow comments on a story that we deem might inflame sensitivities. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.