The Boundaries Commission has practically guaranteed further legal action against the process of electoral reform with a recent press release, according to Warren Cabral, Secretary of the Association for Due Process and the Constitution.

Last summer, the Association made a last-ditch effort in a London high court to prevent the Order in Council which gave the Boundaries Commission new powers, from going ahead. Their argument - that the Constitution cannot be changed without a constitutional conference - was rejected by a judge who said that the changes at that stage were of a minor nature and the Government had a mandate to pursue single seat constituencies.

The Association vowed to continue their battle for a conference, saying there might well be further legal action in the future.

It also shifted its focus to broadening the debate on electoral reform by educating the public on alternative electoral systems and providing a multiple choice guide to assist people in making informed submissions.

Days before the Commission held its first meetings with the public, it issued a press release saying much of the questions in the Association's guide were irrelevant to its work.

Boundaries Commission Secretary Clevelyn Crichlow has not returned calls.

That, says Mr. Cabral, gives the Association "very clear grounds" for another judicial review.

"They have taken an extremely narrow interpretation of their own remit," he said. "It is quite clear from the wording of the Order in Council that the Commission's remit covers the proposed change from a dual seat to a single seat system as well as the number of MPs and the location of boundaries. As it is, the Commission appears to be saying that it will not discuss the proposed change from dual seats to single seats, nor any other system which realises 'one man one vote of equal value'. Therefore, there will have been no consideration by the Commission" or effective public consultation on constitutional change.

He added: "The court rejected our initial application for judicial review principally on the basis that the Boundaries Commission would be a forum for public consultation. It now appears that this will not be the case.

"Unless the Boundaries Commission changes its position, it follows that a major amendment to the Constitution will take place without discussion on at least one of the key issues, and, it seems, without a constitutional conference being held in accordance with established practice."

Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office has said a constitutional conference is neither ruled in nor ruled out when the Boundaries Commission completes its work.

By the terms of the Order in Council, the Commission's report will be debated in the House of Assembly and sent, together with the report of the House debate to Whitehall. A decision will then be made on whether to hold a constitutional conference before enacting another Order in Council making further changes to the Constitution.