to receive a challenge to the election of Dr. Ewart Brown MP, Dr. Brown's lawyer said yesterday.

And Attorney General Mr. Elliott Mottley has expressed that view to Government, Mr. Julian Hall told The Royal Gazette.

Mr. Hall cited the Legislature (Appointment, Election and Membership Controversies) Act 1968, which says "a representation petition questioning an election shall be presented within 28 days after the date upon which the writ of an election has been returned.'' The "statutory time frame'' within which Dr. Brown's election in Warwick West could be challenged has been exceeded, and that opinion is reflected in an opinion sent to Cabinet from the Attorney General's Chambers on June 12, Mr.

Hall said.

Mr. Hall released excerpts of two opinions sent to Government from the AG, and challenged Premier the Hon. Sir John Swan to release all the documents and help put the matter to rest. "The Premier owes it to the Country,'' Mr. Hall said. And, "the best thing to do is to leave Dr. Brown alone''.

The controversy erupted on June 8 when The Royal Gazette reported that the Progressive Labour Party MP was elected in apparent breach of the Constitution.

Dr. Brown, a longtime California resident and physician, obtained US citizenship in 1990. Bermuda's Constitution says that anyone who by their own act is "under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power'' is ineligible to seek election as an MP.

Aside from the technical question of the time limit for an election challenge, Mr. Hall said he believes the Constitution is referring to an oath of office, not citizenship, and Dr. Brown has no case to answer.

The Premier, who is a member of the House Rules and Privileges Committee that met for the second time yesterday over the Dr. Brown matter, said Cabinet received an opinion from the AG, but it was "not the custom for us to hand those documents out to the public''.

The AG subsequently reported that "the matter really was a matter for the House, and that's where the other memorandum went'', Sir John said.

Mr. DeCouto said it would be improper for him to make public the much longer opinion he received from Mr. Mottley while the Rules and Privileges Committee was still considering the matter.

The full committee met for about an hour yesterday and will likely meet again in about two weeks, Mr. DeCouto said.

Opposition Leader Mr. Frederick Wade and Shadow Works Minister Mr. Walter Roberts, who stayed away from the first committee meeting on July 7, attended the meeting yesterday. Mr. Wade said he attended because he was satisfied Dr.

Brown had retained a lawyer and he wanted to "make it clear to the committee that we still view committee's deliberations as illegal and ... outside of their authority''.

Mr. DeCouto has said the committee gets its authority to consider the matter under the Rules of the House of Assembly.

Meanwhile, Mr. Mottley denied yesterday that he told Government the Supreme Court "would be unlikely to uphold a challenge over the validity of Dr.

Brown's election'', as reported in Thursday's The Royal Gazette.

"I never said that,'' Mr. Mottley told The Royal Gazette.

The statement was attributed to Mr. Mottley by Mr. Hall, who yesterday stood by his description of Mr. Mottley's opinion and released excerpts from the AG's opinions to support his view.

In the June 12 opinion sent to Cabinet, which is signed by AG Parliamentary Counsel Ms Cathryn Balfour Davies, it is stated that the argument could be made that the Constitution would over-ride the 28-day time constraint set out in the Legislature (Appointment, Election and Membership Controversies) Act 1968.

"However, the safer course is to assume that (the time constraint) would be applied strictly so an action under the 1968 Act would be struck out,'' she said.

The second opinion, dated June 28, sent to Mr. DeCouto and signed by Mr.

Mottley, reads in part: "We have moved away from the view that proceedings may be brought in the Supreme Court relating to Dr. Brown,'' and "we have come to the conclusion that the case of Dr. Brown should be dealt with as a matter of privilege by the House of Assembly itself.'' Mr. Mottley cites the 28-day time limit, saying the act in which it is contained is "deliberately narrowly defined and would be strictly construed by a court''.

Mr. Mottley said yesterday it would be wrong for him to release copies of his letters, and it would be up to his clients to do so.

Dr. Brown, who received copies of the legal opinions from Mr. DeCouto, declined an invitation to attend yesterday's committee meeting on the advice of Mr. Hall.

In a letter sent to Mr. DeCouto from Mr. Hall on Tuesday, the lawyer said Dr.

Brown would first want to know what facts were alleged against him, what the source of the facts was, and whether the committee had been properly convened.

Mr. Hall noted Mr. DeCouto had called the meetings of the Rules and Privileges Committee, when matters are normally referred to the committee by the House.

Since nothing had been referred to the committee by the House, the meetings are "void and of no effect'', Mr. Hall said in the letter.