legal challenge in the courts in London if it ignores established procedures for changing the Constitution.

Warren Cabral quoted the report of the 1966 Constitutional Conference which established that the Foreign Secretary would not make a recommendation to the Privy Council without consulting the Bermuda Government.

The report continues: "And, if the Secretary of State considered the proposals to be of a major nature, he would call another representative conference.'' Mr. Cabral, who works for Appleby, Spurling and Kempe but was speaking in a personal capacity, said the statement was reaffirmed in 1979 and 1989.

He quoted Attorney General Dame Lois Browne Evans, the then-leader of the Progressive Labour Party, who on November 13, 1989 said: "The PLP is not averse to further amendments being made to the present constitution.

"We stand firmly on the position that before any further amendments are made, however, a constitutional conference must be held which will include on its agenda all those electoral reforms already enunciated.'' Mr. Cabral said both the Bermuda Government and the Foreign Office had refused to explain why they had ignored established procedure.

And he said Foreign Secretary Robin Cook could be challenged in the courts in London if he makes a recommendation to the Privy Council to change Bermuda's constitution without following established conventions.

He told The Royal Gazette : "The 1966 conference sets out the procedure for further amendments to the constitution. Dame Lois Browne Evans confirmed and affirmed that procedure in the strongest possible terms in 1989 when she said it should be a constitutional conference.

"Between 1966 and the present day the procedure has been followed, in 1979 and 1989, in the sense that procedure says that for major matters we need a constitutional conference and for minor matters we do not.

"I am wholly satisfied, and I know my views are shared by Queens Counsel and senior lawyers in Bermuda such as Ian Kawaley that there is a constitutional convention requiring a constitutional conference.

"That convention comes into being because there was a written express undertaking from the Foreign Secretary in 1966 that any further major amendments to the constitution will be dealt with by reasonable notice to both houses of the legislature and a constitutional conference.

"It could not be clearer. It is a firm undertaking of a government and the legal consequences of the passage of time, and repeated observance of that undertaking, is to convert the practice into a constitutional convention.

"What is known in Public Affairs Law as a `legitimate expectation' has arisen that the principles of the 1966 conference will be followed.

"It was followed in 1979, and as the small changes in 1989 were not `major' as stipulated in the 1966 principles, no conference was required. The `legitimate expectation' converts `practice' into a `convention'.

"What is at issue has nothing to do with Bermuda. It relates strictly to the Foreign Secretary of the UK and the exercise of his discretion in making a recommendation to the Privy Council to change the constitution.

"The law says he may not exercise his discretion without regard to Bermuda's constitutional conventions and if he attempts to do so, he is subject to judicial review, which would start in the High Court.

"The absence of due process creates anxiety. It's quite understandable that people should be upset and doubtful.

"We have established due process which both the Bermuda Government and the Foreign Secretary have ignored.'' Warren Cabral