The Boundaries Commission may have broken the law because the public were not given the opportunity to comment on the location of new electoral boundaries, according to the Association for Due Process and the Constitution.

“We are now taking legal advice. We believe that the Commission was in breach of the Order in Council,” Association secretary Warren Cabral said on Friday.

Mr. Cabral said that he was pleased to see that UBP MP and Commissioner John Barritt had, in his dissenting view, expressed concerns shared by the Association.

“He expresses precisely the same concern that the public was prevented from making any submission on the location of the boundaries ... we were totally prevented from making presentations on that” even after repeated requests. It's good to see it's now on the record - that the public were prevented from exercising their statutory rights.”

The Association argues that because the Order in Council which empowered the Boundaries Commission required it to seek the views of the public, that meant that the public should have had access to the software used to generate the boundaries.

But his repeated requests for the software were denied.

“The Chairman was asked twice in writing and once in person,” he said. “The Premier was asked -- they all positively refused to release the tools necessary to make submissions... The Commission was required to take the views of the public into account.

“The public was denied the tools and so their views were not taken into account,” he continued.

Works and Engineering Minister Alex Scott confirmed that Mr. Cabral had applied and sent in a $2,400 cheque for mapping software available to the public from his department.

But he had included in his application a request for census and electoral boundaries data which the department does not have the authority to provide.

This was communicated to Mr. Cabral, the Minister said, but he did not get back to the Department to confirm whether he wanted the publicly available information or his cheque back.

“It must be appreciated that while the Works and Engineering Department provides a service to the public. The service we provided to the Boundaries Commission, we are not entitled to give to the public.”

He added: “Even now I would have to guess if he wants the services we do provide. All I need from him are instructions.”

If the Association does take legal action it would be relying on the European Convention on Human Rights which states that parties to an enquiry had the right to the same tools.

Contacted at his home in Barbados, Sir Frank Blackman, who chaired the Commission, said he had no response.

“There was correspondence between them and us but I really cannot say what the points were.”

Mr. Cabral's argument was put to him and he said: “I'm sure he's entitled to that argument.”

Last year a British judge threw out an application by The Association for judicial review of the UK Government's handling of Constitutional reform.

The Association had maintained that the Constitution cannot be changed without a conference.

When the electoral reform process got underway with a series of public meetings with the Boundaries Commission, the group focused on demanding more public access and providing information to the public.

Mr. Cabral derided as “risible” (laughable and ludicrous) the reasons given in the report for reducing the size of the House of Assembly.

“That the House often functions with fewer than 40 members - it's a non-reason, an observation,” he said. “If you reduce it to 36, 30 will turn up. If you reduce it to 30, 25 will turn up. The Commission was only going through the motions because the proposition has been put.”

And to say that the Progressive Labour Party had the electoral reform proposals in the platform was also not a reason, he continued.

“Our role is to see that the process is logical and transparent. The whole thing has no purpose or at least no clear purpose. The only reason I, as an individual, can see is that the House will be easier to dominate. The smaller it is the easier it is to dilute the Opposition and dominate the House. No ethical reason was advanced in the four criteria put in the Boundaries Commission report.”