Former Hamilton mayoral candidate Sonia Grant told a court yesterday that she did not mind losing last year’s election to Sutherland Madeiros but soon after became concerned about a “whole array of irregularities” concerning the vote.

Miss Grant, who has launched a legal bid to have the result of the October 26 election overturned in what could be a precedent-setting case, told a Supreme Court hearing: “My upsetness only began within 24 hours of the conclusion of the election.

“It really didn’t bother me that I had lost. Somebody had to win and somebody had to lose but what upset me tremendously were the irregularities that came to light.”

Miss Grant alleges that Kelly Miller, secretary for the Corporation of Hamilton and the registering officer for the election, and returning officer John Cooper, wrongly interpreted the law, allowing companies, associations and partnerships to change the name of the person or nominee registered to vote on their behalf after the mayoral election date was announced on October 6.

She further claims that the numbering of 18 ballot papers was an illegal practice which could have led to voters being identified and that ten voters who were not on the official election register should not have been allowed to cast a vote.

The former deputy mayor, who lost out to Mr. Madeiros by 124 to his 161 votes, is also complaining that the ballot box on the day of the election was not locked with a key but merely secured with metal straps.

Ms Miller’s lawyer Jai Pachai asked Miss Grant why she did not object to there being no lock and key on the box at the previous mayoral election, in April 2006, when she was beaten by the late Jay Bluck.

She said that on that occasion the candidates were shown the box was empty but that in October it was already secured with straps and they had to peer inside with a flashlight.

Mr. Paichai asked why she signified her satisfaction with the ballot box that day. Miss Grant replied: “I wasn’t happy but the election had to move forward.”

Mr. Cooper told the court there was no key for the lock on the box but that it would have been impossible for anyone to tamper with it without his knowledge because the metal straps would have to have been cut.

He was quizzed as to why he made a private note of the ballot paper numbers for eight nominees who were substituted for others on the register after notice of the election was published and ten others who were allowed to vote despite not being on the register. Mr. Cooper said it was in case of any future challenge as to their right to vote.

Ms Miller later gave evidence, telling the court that she had never received any objection from Miss Grant to ballot papers being numbered since becoming corporation secretary in October 2003.

She said Miss Grant was told on October 23 that Mr. Cooper had given the opinion that nominees should be allowed to change after notice of the election was given.

“I advised Miss Grant that there was this opinion and I gave her the relevant section of the (Municipalities) Act,” she said, adding that Miss Grant told her the next day that she had not read the section.

“Miss Grant is an attorney,” she added. “Miss Grant could have taken five minutes to look at the section of the act or to have called Mr. Cooper or to have taken any action.”

A letter from Miss Grant was read out during the hearing which said that her action could potentially lead to changes to the Municipalities Act 1923.

“In the history of Bermuda we know of no one who has challenged any election here and as such this is a precedent-setting case,” she wrote.

The case before Chief Justice Richard Ground continues today.