A government whistle-blower told a court yesterday that her professional reputation was destroyed and she faced losing her home after she was fired on the orders of Premier Ewart Brown.

LeYoni Junos, representing herself, alleged in Supreme Court that the sacking came about because she raised a red flag about Henderson Associates Inc., a US company with whom she said Dr. Brown had "close ties".

The court heard that Henderson Associates was believed by her and others in the Department of Tourism to have published "false and fraudulent information" about Bermuda's African Diaspora Heritage Trail (ADHT) Foundation, claiming in an e-mail and on a website that it had US charitable status, when it did not.

Ms Junos, 47, who is trying to get her job as administrator of the foundation back through a judicial review, told Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley that as "a Bermudian in my own country" she lost her livelihood and had just had her mortgage foreclosed because she tried to do the right thing.

"My professional reputation, in working for the Department of Tourism, has been destroyed," she said, adding that she was now unlikely to be able to get another job in the public or private sector.

"Where does that leave me with my mortgage and my financial commitments in my own country?" she said. "This is why I have been pushing for reinstatement — because I need to work and I was unlawfully terminated and I didn't deserve it."

Ms Junos, of Warwick, claimed Dr. Brown verbally threatened her with dismissal, after which she was handed a letter terminating her temporary contract with a week's notice and no reason given on April 10 last year by then acting tourism director Ian MacIntyre.

It came a day after she sent an open letter to the ADHT board rebutting allegations Tourism Minister Dr. Brown made about her at a meeting and informing members that Maryland-based Henderson Associates was using false information to "actively solicit funds from US donors".

Her letter said the company asked potential donors to make cheques payable to an organisation called FACTS Institute Inc., which Henderson claimed was a subsidiary of the publicly funded ADHT but which Department of Tourism staff knew nothing about.

Ms Junos wrote that she and her Department of Tourism bosses, along with foundation lawyer Bala Nadarajah, had been dealing with the "blatantly unauthorised and potentially damaging behaviour" for several months.

Mr. MacIntyre swore in an affidavit for the judicial review that Ms Junos had a "private agenda" and her letter to the board, which is chaired by the Premier, convinced him that she was not right for the administrator post.

But Ms Junos, a former Department of Agriculture librarian and Amnesty International director, told the court: "I was not on a private crusade with the Hendersons but I was genuinely concerned."

She told the judge: "I have been waiting for a whole year to have my case before the court to try to get some justice and try to get some sanity back in my life.

"I don't want to get emotional but I'm very disturbed by the fact that those senior members of the Department of Tourism know what happened but I'm standing here alone." She added: "I'm being made the scapegoat now."

She said Tourism staff had suffered problems with Henderson Associates, event planners for ADHT conferences, for years and that the company "made direct contact with Dr. Brown when they couldn't get what they wanted".

Ms Junos claimed reinstating her as administrator of the ADHT Foundation would be helpful in boosting morale in the civil service because, she claimed, "there is such an atmosphere of intimidation".

Crown counsel Gregory Howard, for the Government, said the open letter Ms Junos sent to the board contained "inflammatory" language. "It seems like a relationship-ending kind of letter to me," he said.

He said it was usual for there to be "some conflict" with an overseas contractor and for the contractor to be "no doubt trying to make a profit". Mr. Howard also questioned how long the website page containing the information for potential donors was online.

Ms Junos claims her sacking was "covert disciplinary action" and breached the Public Service Commission Regulations, which she said she was protected by because she had been in the job more than six months.

But Mr. Howard argued that a clause in Ms Junos' temporary contract meant it could be terminated with a week's notice and without the need to explain why. He said she was not fired for misconduct because there was no need to go down that route.

Mr. Justice Kawaley reserved his judgment to a later date.