may have to subpoena the Attorney General when his writ is heard by the Supreme Court.

Mr. Philip Perinchief told The Royal Gazette yesterday that evidence heard at a recent Commission of Inquiry into the one-day delay in the vote supported his view that the August 16 referendum should be ruled "null and void.'' The commission, appointed under the Commission of Inquiry Act 1935, has yet to submit its report to Governor Lord Waddington. It is expected around the end of this month.

But Mr. Perinchief said testimony at the inquiry from Attorney General Mr.

Elliott Mottley supported his view that the one-day postponement was illegal, and Parliament should have been reconvened to set a new date in the wake of Hurricane Felix.

"He gave an opinion which suggested that Parliament ought to have been reconvened and that Section 44 (of the Parliamentary Election Act 1978) did not permit the kind of exercise that took place,'' Mr. Perinchief said.

Section 44 was used when returning officers were sent out in the early afternoon, opening and closing their polling stations and adjourning the vote until the next morning.

Mr. Mottley told the commission the section of the act was intended to deal with an isolated disruption that affected individual polling stations. It was not intended for an Island-wide delay.

Mr. Perinchief's writ was filed against the Attorney General. A date for a hearing in Supreme Court has not been set.

"The AG, I wonder whether he's become a party (to the hearing on the referendum writ),'' Mr. Perinchief said. "Is his position compromised? He may have to be subpoenaed.'' The same week the referendum was held, Mr. Perinchief -- a staunch proponent of Independence -- launched a legal battle to kill the referendum "no'' vote.

He argued the one-day postponement resulting from Hurricane Felix might have taken away the right of some Bermudians to vote, because there was not enough advance notice.

The lawyer and former Progressive Labour Party candidate believed the Commission of Inquiry into the referendum should not have been held because the matter was sub judice, or before the courts, as a result of his writ.