Objectors to the Boundaries Commission's electoral reform recommendations may have less than two more weeks to make their views known to Whitehall.

But lobby group The Association for Due Process and the Constitution, which led a two-year battle for a constitutional conference before changing the constitution is not holding out any hope that their concerns will be taken into account.

A statement from the Governor last week reminded the public that the order in council which would transform the electoral system was drafted late last year and that the Secretary of State is "minded" to recommend it to the Privy Council.

Once the Privy Council signs off on the draft order, Bermuda's electoral system will consist of 36 single seat constituencies, instead of the current 20 dual seat constituencies, and the next general election will be contested along the new rules.

The Royal Gazette printed the full text of the draft order in its November 29 edition.

"The draft Order in Council would amend the Constitution of Bermuda to give legal effect to the recommendations of the Constituency Boundaries Commission which reported to the Governor in August 2002, and whose report was approved by the House of Assembly on 11 October 2002," reads the Governor's statement.

"The article published with the draft Order in Council stated that, in the light of this, the Secretary of State was minded to recommend the draft Order in Council to Her Majesty in Council in January 2003.

"As there was, in the event, no meeting of the Privy Council in January, the draft Order in Council has not yet been made. The next meeting of the Privy Council will take place on 27 February. The Secretary of State will have to decide, no later than 20 February, whether to submit the draft Order in Council to that meeting.

"Representations on the proposals may still be made in the meantime and should be sent to the Governor (Government House, Hamilton, Bermuda; email depgovibl.bm for forwarding to the Secretary of State."

The Boundaries Commission recommendations were unanimously approved by the Commissioners and the House of Assembly when it was debated last August. An Opposition add on motion asking the UK to convene a constitutional conference to address residual issues such as an independent speaker, failed by a voice vote.

Warren Cabral, secretary of the Due Process Association, said that he had already made some comments to the British Government.

"I was talking to an MP, Iain Davidson, and he said that the British Government is interested in outcomes, not process, and that about sums it up," he said. "We've asked them to make some changes to the second order in council which provides for two things. The first is public access to data - whatever the Boundaries Commission considers they should have the general public should have the same. And we're also hoping for some assurance as to the procedure for future changes to the constitution."

When asked he said that the Association was no longer considering legal action.

"What really is the point at the end of the day? Even if you win on a procedural point the sheer political momentum is unstoppable." But he added that the Association's efforts were well worth it.

"There is an actual point about the rule of law which is worth being tenacious... And sure it might be seen as academic but a lot of important things like the right to a jury trial are academic. The thing that comes out of all of this is that in the future any government can now do what they like. There is no constitutional impediment, there is nothing to protect the man on the street from untrammelled power. And this is about the man on the street. constitutional change is something that affects everybody."

He added: "Objective historians will see that the whole thing was tainted by sloppy procedure... A very good example is the OJ Simpson case where small procedural errors tainted the whole procedure. Its a pity that something so important was tainted by sloppy handling. The bottom line for all of this is that the general public is now at the mercy of the House of Assembly."

In 2001, the Association lost a judicial review hearing which sought to prevent the constitution being changed to kick of the reform process, without a conference.

No one from the United Bermuda Party could be contacted to find out what, if any, comments the party has made to Whitehall.