The legitimacy of a surge in sign-ups for the Progressive Labour Party during its present leadership campaign has been questioned in the Supreme Court.

Mark Pettingill gave his submissions for the defence today in a legal dispute over PLP membership that could determine the future of the party’s leadership.

Mr Pettingill, who represents Dawn Simmons, the chairwoman of the PLP, and Patricia Basden, the party’s secretary-general, said five bulk payments totalling $45,845 made by the campaign for leadership contender and former finance minister Curtis Dickinson had “raised the flag” for party officials.

He said the money was for 1,822 PLP membership sign-ups that came as a result of the campaigning by Mr Dickinson.

A busy courtroom - David Burt, the Premier, and Zane DeSilva, the party’s deputy leader, were both in attendance - heard Mr Pettingill argue that the new members could not be verified.

The dispute started after two changes to the party’s membership and delegate process were put forward and approved at an August 24 central committee meeting.

The first would prevent those who have publicly campaigned against the PLP in the past two general elections from automatically becoming members.

A second meant those who were party members for less than a year would be ineligible to act as delegates at the upcoming conference and election.

Mr Dickinson, who is running against Jason Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour, to become the next party leader, has argued that the process by which the changes were approved went against the party constitution.

On Thursday, Delroy Duncan KC, representing Mr Dickinson, argued that verification procedures put in place by the party were “void”.

Mr Pettingill said that as an association, the PLP was “entitled to determine who its members are”.

The lawyer cited a case in Australia involving a party member seeking election into a senior position going into branches, signing people up and paying their sign-up fee for them.

Mr Pettingill said: “Branch stacking. That’s exactly what's happening here. That’s what that type of approach particularly is called.”

Quoting from a sworn legal statement by Mr Dickinson, Mr Pettingill added: “My campaign has kept meticulous records of every individual it has signed up to be in the party.”

The defence lawyer said Mr Dickinson’s campaign realised if they signed up enough new members they would create a road to the “promised land” where the former finance minister becomes the Premier.

“This is the game plan,” Mr Pettingill told the court.

He added: “What raised the flag in this case was the defendant, the chairwoman.

“This was in such bulk that it raised the flag, and she said that in her first affidavit. She was overwhelmed and she said that.”

Mr Pettingill further argued that there must be personal intention to join the party by a personal payment.

“It has to be personal. The contract is with the individual person signing up and making the payment, that's how you get there,” he said.

“A bulk payment by a third party does not prove that every named person who applied is authorised to do that. It could be that a third party did this. The point is, how do I know?”

He added: “There’s no list that says, we cross-checked those people and said, we will pay for them because we are nice.”

He also spoke about people coming into other areas to sign people up for the PLP, a practice known as warehousing.

“I would respectfully say that's not what the PLP stands for.”

Mr Pettingill then gave an example of the One Bermuda Alliance leader signing up for the PLP and subsequently gaining access to meetings.

“When you see that — do you think, what a nonsense, rip it up and put it in the bin? Of course you do.

“The payer was not the applicant, that’s the meaning.

“I’m taking it further than that and saying, if he pays it would be a nonsense. Because we don’t want you. It’s an organisation. It’s the PLP.

“This is not how we want a contract to be. Not just for Mr Dickinson; it’s across the board.

“At the end of the day, was the attempt to fulfil these membership contracts based on a legitimate interest in bringing people to the PLP for everybody, for the party, or was it about getting elected? What was it about?”

Mr Duncan then asked: “Is my learned friend saying that every single member that signed up is now no longer a valid member?”

Mr Pettingill replied: “I can’t answer that question because I can’t verify.”

Mr Duncan then asked: “Is my friend saying that my client wrote these cheques for everybody?”

Mr Pettingill responded: “I’m not making it up as I go along. He says he signed them up and your campaign chairperson paid for them.

“I’m not saying there are people who did not sign up and pay; maybe they did. How would we know?

“The issue for the court, in our respectful view, is whether each application was genuine and the payment attributed to it.

“They kept meticulous records. Meticulous lists. The list that’s not there is who paid and who did not pay.”

Acting Chief Justice Shade Subair Williams adjourned the case until Monday to allow Mr Duncan time to file evidence to address the points of payment.

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers