Premier Jennifer Smith has said a group planning to sue British Foreign Minister Robin Cook over broken promises on constitutional change were acting prematurely.

The Association for Due Process and the Constitution say the British promised in 1966 that a conference would be called if major changes were planned for Bermuda's constitution.

Bermuda's Progressive Labour Party government plan to abolish dual seat constituencies based on parish boundaries and have new boundaries drawn up consisting of single seats.

A statement from the Premier's office said: "The Premier expressed surprise that persons in Bermuda are preparing to contest a decision that has not yet been determined.

"The Premier noted that it would be premature to comment on the United Kingdom Government's decision since there hasn't been one and therefore any discussion about a judicial review -- unless Mr. Cabral's group has information not available to the Bermuda Government -- is not only in advance of the fact, but also makes assumptions about which Government declines to comment.

"In conclusion, the Premier said that as far as the Bermuda Government is aware, the UK Government is still considering the proposals for amendment, and no decision has, as yet, been officially communicated to the Government.'' Lawyer Warren Cabral who is leading the legal challenge said he did not wish to get into an argument with the Premier.

He said: "She's perfectly entitled to make her proposals.'' But he said the concern was over the way the British Government was handling the process of constitutional change. He said: "We don't want to set a precedent which could be misused in future.'' And he denied he was jumping the gun before a decision had been taken. He said: "The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has already indicated it won't hold a constitutional conference. That's the only thing of legal significance.'' United Bermuda Party Legislative Affairs spokesman John Barritt welcomed news of a legal challenge.

"It's something that crossed our minds as well.'' He said his party had wanted to exhaust the political route first but Mr.

Barritt believed the Bermuda and British Governments were close to sealing a deal on constitutional change.

"If we give it to the courts to decide it can be done without interference from either political party.'' Premier says legal action premature At the beginning of the month the Foreign and Commonwealth Office heard submissions from the Government and the UBP as well as questions and suggestions from individuals at a session at Government House.

But Mr. Barritt labelled these talks as shallow.

"I am quite prepared to be a witness in view of what happened at Government House.'' "It gives a chance to support a non-political group and rally behind something that's about the best interests of Bermuda, about due process regardless of who's in power.'' Asked if it was possible to challenge a Foreign Secretary over a promise made by a former foreign secretary 35 years ago, Mr Barritt said: "It's an arguable point.'' "If the Opposition hadn't argued so vehemently we would not have had what we had at Government House. The changes would have been passed by majority vote in the House of Assembly.'' Earlier this month Foreign and Commonwealth deputy legal advisor Ian Hendry said the British government would face up to any court challenge on how it had handled constitutional change.

But Mr. Hendry said: "There certainly was a statement in the report of the 1966 conference (that) if there were to be, in the view of the Secretary of State, a major change, that a representative conference would be held.

He added: "There is no automatic requirement for a constitutional conference to be called for changes to the Constitution of Bermuda. What is meant by a conference?'' He said the Government House talks had seen a wide variety of views expressed.

And Deputy Governor Tim Gurney said: "Although the sessions which took place were not formally constitutional conferences they were aimed at giving the general public a terrific opportunity to make their views known which didn't happen at prior constitutional conferences.

"The general public continue to make their views very clear by e-mail, letters, the meeting at Government House, and through other groups.'' But Mr. Cabral said the flying visit by the FCO team did not constitute a Constitutional Conference because it was held at short notice, began on a Monday morning when many people were at work while the evening meeting was held at less than 24 hours notice.

He said: "It's grotesque, it's a charade.'' Mr. Gurney said the consultation was not necessarily over.

He said: "We have made it clear a referendum has not been ruled out. It's not ruled out and it's not ruled in at the moment.

CLUB CLB