This column was submitted before the Supreme Court decision was revealed on Friday night declaring the Progressive Labour Party’s membership rules invalid.

By the time a political party questions the loyalty of those seeking to join it, it should examine its own history.

Bermuda’s Progressive Labour Party has welcomed former opponents, including figures from the United Bermuda Party. That history matters as the PLP debates membership, delegate eligibility and who may help to choose its next leader.

The controversy and the court

On August 24, the PLP Central Committee approved two measures, the first proposed by a member of the committee, and the second by David Burt, the party leader and Premier.

The first created an evidence-based objection process for applicants who had recently stood or campaigned against the PLP, with objections considered individually by the Central Committee. The second required at least 12 months’ membership before someone could serve as a delegate at the party’s leadership conference.

Burt defended both as safeguards: a party may examine recent opponents’ applications and expect delegates to understand its organisation. Those are legitimate interests. But the central question is whether the rules were adopted constitutionally, applied fairly and introduced at a time that could affect an ongoing leadership contest.

Curtis Dickinson and four other members challenged the measures as inconsistent with the party’s constitution and by-laws. On September 4, the Supreme Court issued an interim injunction preventing implementation. Its September 10 ruling identified serious questions about the Central Committee’s authority and the possible effect on existing members’ rights.

On September 28, the PLP announced a notice consenting to orders sought by the plaintiffs in the original proceedings, subject to a final court order; this was reported on September 29. Related proceedings continued in October, including questions about retrospectively changing accrued membership rights. The announcement did not conclude every aspect of the litigation. The distinction between whether a rule is desirable and whether it is lawfully adopted remains essential.

A history of crossing political lines

The PLP’s experience shows that former political allegiance need not define someone permanently. These examples differ: crossing the parliamentary floor is not the same as joining after the UBP dissolved. Yet together they challenge any assumption that former UBP affiliation automatically proves present disloyalty.

Grace Bell was a UBP Member of Parliament who crossed the floor to the PLP in 1998, demonstrating that political realignment predates the present dispute.

Wayne Furbert, a former UBP leader, left that party, sat as an independent and crossed the floor to the PLP in March 2010. He later became a prominent PLP government figure.

Gwyneth Rawlins, formerly a UBP chairwoman, subsequently joined the PLP despite having held a senior position in the opposing party.

Maxwell Burgess, a former UBP MP and minister, joined the PLP and later served as deputy chairman of its 2017 General Election campaign committee. His contribution extended beyond ordinary membership.

Jamahl Simmons, previously a UBP MP, joined the PLP, won the Sandys South by-election under its banner in November 2014 and served on the party’s 2017 election campaign committee. He was also appointed Minister of Economic Development and Tourism by Burt after winning the 2017 election.

Kim Swan, another former UBP leader, joined the PLP after the UBP’s dissolution. His path differed from that of a sitting MP crossing the floor.

The lesson is not that every applicant must be admitted. It is that the party has previously accepted political converts, including former opposition leaders and campaign organisers. It must explain consistently why any comparable applicant should now face a different standard.

Conversion, delegates and leadership

A party may investigate evidence of bad faith, manipulated applications or an effort to distort its internal elections. It must also recognise genuine changes of political conviction. An applicant’s present commitment and compliance with valid rules should matter more than past party affiliation alone. History does not automatically invalidate a properly enacted delegate waiting period; it does demand fair, transparent and consistent justification.

Delegates are chosen by members through PLP branches and take part in the annual general conference, electing party officials and the party leader. Sitting PLP MPs also vote for the new leader.

A new 12-month eligibility rule would affect recently signed-up members’ opportunity to become delegates. Burt argued that delegates should know the organisation; nevertheless, any such restriction requires proper constitutional authority, adequate notice and respect for rights acquired under existing rules.

Timing matters.

The dispute arose during a leadership contest between Jason Hayward and Curtis Dickinson. Membership could influence branch composition, delegate entitlements and delegate selection. Burt said he intended to remain neutral.

Some would argue that the circumstances and timing around the changes were designed during an election cycle to favour Hayward, whom the party leader is known to support.

They do justify scrutiny of its practical effects, especially when rules are changed close to delegate selection.

Dickinson challenged the legality of the changes.

Fair rules, fairly made

The PLP has legitimate reasons to protect its identity, membership rolls, branch independence and leadership elections. Those aims can coexist with an open, credible route for new members. Sound standards would set out clear eligibility criteria, require evidence for objections, allow applicants to respond and adopt delegate rules through the constitutionally prescribed process. They should apply regardless of which leadership candidate might benefit.

A genuine change of allegiance must be distinguished from a proven attempt to undermine the party. Members should be able to understand both the standards and how they are administered. Neither party discipline nor the leadership’s belief that a rule is sensible substitute for constitutional authority.

Who owns the PLP?

The PLP belongs to its members, subject to its constitution and rules.

It does not belong exclusively to its leader, the Central Committee or any individual faction.

Bermuda’s political history shows that the boundaries between political parties have never been entirely fixed.

Bell, Furbert, Rawlins, Burgess, Simmons and Swan followed different paths into the PLP.

Their histories do not establish automatic admission rights, but they make consistency indispensable.

Their experiences do not prove that every new applicant should be accepted, nor do they establish that every former UBP politician had an identical history. They do, however, make it essential to explain why a particular standard should apply today and how it differs from the standards applied in the past.

Political conversion has long been accepted by the PLP. It should not be dismissed merely because members arrive during an election cycle. It should not be welcomed when it benefits the party and doubted solely when it occurs during a contested leadership election.

The real test is whether the PLP can defend its rules consistently, constitutionally and fairly no matter who benefits.

A political organisation confident in its identity should be able to welcome new members without abandoning principles and protect its integrity without compromising members’ rights through rules that are constitutional, transparent and fair.

• Renée Webb is a former Progressive Labour Party MP who ran as an independent candidate in the last General Election