Judges sitting on the Court of Appeal have declined to recuse themselves from a case about a commission of inquiry into land losses.

Appellants LeYoni Junos, Myron Piper and Raymond Davis — who also goes by Khalid Wasi — yesterday demanded that members the Court of Appeal step away from hearing the case.

The case came forward after the Supreme Court ruled that the Commission of Inquiry into Historical Land Losses had mishandled the evidence of Robert Moulder.

Mr Moulder, who stood before the CoI in 2021, alleged that his evidence proving that he was defrauded of his land had been suppressed by the CoI.

He claimed that lawyers, real estate agents and banks had colluded to swindle him out of a property in Sandys, which the CoI heard in hearings behind closed doors.

Mr Moulder later accused the CoI of failing to give him a fair hearing after they sealed his evidence for 50 years and turned to the Supreme Court to seek judicial review.

The appellants argued yesterday that the members of the appeals court had too many links to Mr Moulder’s case to give him a fair hearing.

Ms Junos, who also spoke on behalf of Mr Moulder, said: “In order to let this inquiry to be seen to be justice, anyone involved should be recused. That hasn’t happened.”

“If the average person can look at this and say, ‘I think this can be biased’ then something’s wrong.”

Mr Moulder, who also sat in on yesterday’s case, said that he had “no confidence whatsoever” in the Court of Appeal’s ability to remain impartial.

But Justice of Appeal Ian Kawaley said that he found the request to recuse himself “disturbing” because it suggested that judges were not impartial enough to hear cases involving people they knew.

He added that this could set a precedent that would prevent Bermudian judges from ever hearing cases because of the likelihood that it would involve others “from a past life”.

Justice of Appeal Geoffrey Bell agreed with this, adding that there had been “too many” cases where judges were asked to recuse themselves.

He said: “The entirety of justice will not function if applications are constantly made.”

Ms Junos said that, while she understood the concern, it had been done before in the lower courts.

She added that not doing so had caused problems in the past for these lower courts and slowed the course of justice.

Ms Junos said: “We don’t want to go through the same thing, and we don’t want to have the same problem.”

The next step for the appellants would be to bring the case to the Privy Council.

The full reasoning of the Court of Appeal’s decision will be given in a statement that will be released at a later date.