Lawyer Saul Froomkin yesterday challenged businessman Harold Darrell?s motive in filing a racial discrimination complaint against 17 past and present Bank of Bermuda directors.

He claimed Mr. Darrell had a track record of complaining about various bank officials each time demands were made for him to bring debt payments up to date.

?Whenever the bank pressed you about payments for loans, you made a complaint about somebody, do you agree?,? asked Mr. Froomkin in cross-examination of Mr. Darrell, whose complaint is currently being heard by a specially-appointed Human Rights Tribunal.

Mr. Darrell, the first witness called to testify on the matter, declined to answer most questions related to his bank financing, or a separate claim that personal information leaked to an associate undermined a lucrative business deal he was negotiating.

Mr. Darrell?s complaint, which dates back to October 2000, alleges discrimination by 17 Bank of Bermuda directors because the confidentiality breach was never properly investigated.

Sonja Salmon, senior legal counsel for the Bank of Bermuda, one of a five-strong legal team defending respondents from the racial allegations, said Mr. Darrell declined to answer about three-quarters of the questions asked yesterday in cross examination.

The Tribunal has been in session since last Wednesday, with the first three days taken up largely by opening remarks and legal arguments.

While the Human Rights Tribunal is considering Mr. Darrell?s racial discrimination claim, a Supreme Court case scheduled for November is to separately consider the confidentiality breach.

Mr. Darrell took the stand yesterday as the first of more than 20 witnesses expected to testify before the Tribunal which is scheduled to sit through Friday.

Mr. Froomkin, who is acting for former chief executive Henry Smith, one of the 17 respondents, told Tribunal chairman Paul King that wide-ranging questions during cross-examination were relevant to the discrimination charge because he was testing Mr. Darrell?s motive, and credibility. Mr. Darrell said he never intended for his discrimination allegation to focus solely on the directors and Mr. Smith.

Mr. Froomkin asked Mr. Darrell if his personal opinion was that his client, Mr. Smith, was personally ?racist?.

?I think so personally but that is not my complaint,? he said.

He said an alleged failure to properly investigate his complaint of a bank officer breaching confidentiality was more likely the result of institutional racism, not individual acts of discrimination by each of the 17 respondents.

He claimed the directors were the ?heart and mind? of an institution that had a track record of being ?contemptuous? of black businessmen in particular.

Mr. Darrell said the directors should be held accountable for the institution they have fiduciary oversight of, in asserting his belief that his complaint also targeted the bank.

Mr. King said he and two others appointed to the Tribunal, Ronald Baptiste and Vonda Burgess, were following the instructions of the Community Affairs Minister to investigate a complaint against the directors not the bank.

Mr. Darrell said his reasons for including the bank as a party were tied to his dealings with two former bank officers, Barry Shailer and Bruce Pottle, who he claimed were at the root of his initial grievance that the breach was never fully investigated, or resolved.

Mr. Froomkin, wading through correspondence going back 12 years, questioned Mr. Darrell on particulars detailed in letters between him or his lawyer and bank officers, as well as on notes filed by bank officers.

In large part, the paper trail followed by Mr. Froomkin related to Mr. Darrell?s outstanding debt with the bank over the period, including particulars such as agreements to waive interest rates over a several-month period or plans to restructure the debt.

The hearing, reached a tense stand-off yesterday when Mr. Darrell declined to answer the majority of questions he was asked.

Visibly frustrated by what he called Mr. Darrell?s ?refusal? to even look at documents, Mr. Froomkin asked for the Tribunal to force the matter.

?Mr. Darrell has to understand that he is not running this show,? Mr. Froomkin told the panel.

Fellow lawyer Jeffrey Elkinson, who is representing the remaining 16 respondents, said: ?The witness is refusing to participate. As it presently stands we are reaching an impasse.?

Mr. King said that while Tribunal would bear in mind that Mr. Darrell refused to answer questions, he turned down demands to have the panel make Mr. Darrell answer, or dismiss the case.

He said Mr. Darrell was being accorded a level of ?free reign? based on his appeal taking some five years to come before the Tribunal.

?It is not going to be said he did not have his day in court,? Mr. King said.

Mr. Darrell?s lawyer, Anthony Cottle, asked Mr. King to throw out part of

Mr. Froomkin?s questioning as ?unrelevant?. But Mr. King denied the request saying he could see that Mr. Froomkin?s questions were aimed at testing motive and credibility.

A second impasse was narrowly averted after Mr. Darrell called for the panel to demand all 17 respondent witness statements be signed. While Mr. King gave leave for Mr. Cottle to seek an adjournment to file a legal order for the request, Mr. Darrell then said he would accept all but two of the witness statements unsigned.

He did not concede to accept statements from former bank officer Alan Richardson and Dennis Tucker. The matter was left open.

Mr. Darrell returns to the witness stand this morning, with Mr. Elkinson due to begin cross-examination once Mr. Froomkin concludes his questioning.