The 24 nominees for National Hero status this year were rejected because they failed to score high enough marks in an assessment completed by members of a selection committee, The Royal Gazette has learnt.

A list of all those nominated by members of the public was obtained by the Gazette and documents that showed the method used to decide who would qualify for the honour were also seen.

Nominees included Barbara Ball, the first female physician to practise in Bermuda who treated both Black and White patients at a time of segregation, journalist Ira Philip and former premier Sir John “Jack” Sharpe.

A seven-member committee was asked to complete a 20-question survey on each nominee and to give a rating of between one and five in response to each question.

Typical questions were “Has the nominee made a long-term, measurable impact on the development of Bermuda?” and “Are they widely recognised as one of the most distinguished in their field?”

Committee members gave scores of one through five depending on whether they thought there was “minimal, limited, moderate, strong or exceptional” evidence to each question.

Nominees had to obtain an average score of 85 to be considered. The scoring format meant that, even if a nominee scored an average mark of four in each question — “strong” evidence — they would only obtain a score of 80, and be rejected.

The committee was established on May 5 with lawyer and former politician Michael Scott appointed as chairman.

Within three weeks, members had submitted their completed questionnaires and the scores were collated ahead of a committee meeting on May 27.

The minutes of that meeting stated in part: “Based in the established criteria which focused on reviewing scores in the 85-and-above range, and with no nominee meeting this threshold after averaging all scores, the committee does not recommend the naming of a National Hero this year.”

According to the minutes, committee members compared the nominees of this year to National Heroes such as Mary Prince, who was enslaved in Bermuda and the first Black woman to publish an autobiography of her experiences in 1831.

The minutes said: “Questions were raised about whether the nominees’ contributions demonstrate a clear and lasting national impact.

“The challenge of matching the impact of figures like Mary Prince was acknowledged, particularly in terms of drawing a direct and universally understood line from their actions to present-day significance.

“It was noted that wonderful people were nominated that did great things, but that did not necessarily make them a hero.

“It was stated that legends are built over time and that future educational initiatives could help strengthen the cases for some of the same individuals in future nomination cycles.”

Following that committee meeting, Mr Scott wrote to culture minister Owen Darrell saying: “While we deeply respect the accomplishments of the nominees, it is the committee’s view that a new National Hero is a profound honour, reserved for individuals whose impact is not only exceptional, but larger than life.

“After a comprehensive assessment of the 25 individuals nominated, the committee concluded that none fully meet this threshold at this time.”

The Gazette has also seen correspondence from the acting director of the Department of Culture.

Writing last week in reference to a Pati request, the civil servant said: “Importantly, the outcome of not naming a new National Hero in a given year is consistent with how similar programmes operate in other jurisdictions.”

The acting director said that Jamaica had named seven National Heroes since 1968; Barbados had 11 since setting up the scheme in 1998; and the Cayman Islands had named ten since 1993. Bermuda has eight National Heroes.

The correspondence added: “These countries, like Bermuda, have adopted a cautious and thoughtful approach, ensuring that the designation remains rare, meaningful and enduring.”

However, one member of the public who put forward a nominee questioned the selection process.

In a post on his blog Onion Soup last month, Dejon Simmons, who recommended journalist Mr Philip for the honour, said: “Twenty-five names. Not a single one deemed worthy. Not even a conversation.

“Just dismissal wrapped and packaged in bureaucratic bulls**t we hear almost every day and filed away for another ten years, most likely when those making decisions and policy won’t even be around any more.

“Over what time period were 25 submissions reviewed, assessed and dismissed?

“What documented framework or criteria were used to guide the evaluation? Were there scorecards, historical consultants, or was it all internal consensus? What exactly is the ‘threshold’?

“Are there measurable criteria — impact reports, historical significance metrics, expert benchmarks — or is it entirely subjective?

“How are past National Heroes being actively honoured today? If their legacies aren’t being taught and truly celebrated, why cling to the title while abandoning the responsibility of legacy?

“Was there sufficient time to deeply evaluate each nomination, or was the review process rushed to meet the symbolic deadline of National Heroes Day on Monday, June 16, 2025?”

Changes to the selection process were made last year when MPs passed the National Heroes Act.

Along with the creation of a selection committee, which will sit every ten years, nominees must be deceased.

Kim Swan, the Junior Minister of Tourism, Sport and Culture, said then: “This Bill seeks to codify the nomination process into legislation to ensure that the selection of a National Hero is driven by established standards and attributes rather than being influenced by any set of current events or political circumstances that may not stand the test of time.”