Dickinson: legal warning to PLP was ignored
Legal advice over a disputed surge in Progressive Labour Party membership, shared last month with members of the party executive, was ignored, a party leadership challenger has claimed.
Curtis Dickinson’s letter to the party, sent out on Sunday, said his campaign had also agreed with David Burt, the Premier, that “an internal process to resolve the issue would be preferred by us both”, after setting out the legal pitfalls of the membership changes.
Mr Dickinson, a former Minister of Finance, wrote of his “surprise” that the exchange of messages on August 31 was followed three days later by a directive changing the terms of the party’s membership process “without any further contact with us to resolve things internally”.
Mr Dickinson, who is contending for the party’s leadership against Jason Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour, said he had communicated with the party leader, party chairman and general secretary regarding motions affecting membership that had been passed by the party’s central committee on August 24.
He had also shared a 13-page “neutral” legal opinion from top lawyer Delroy Duncan with Mr Burt which said that Bermuda’s courts would not uphold the changes.
However, he said he was blindsided on September 3 when the revisions were sent out.
Mr Duncan, who has represented the Government on numerous occasions, stated that a confirmed party member’s status could only be taken away through a disciplinary procedure, or for “non-payment of dues”.
Mr Dickinson’s campaign secured an injunction against the move the next day in the Supreme Court, on September 4.
Mr Dickinson said his lawyers’ “neutral advice on the validity” of membership changes brought by Mr Burt could have shown the party’s central committee “the legal risks they were taking, including the risk of legal costs to the party”.
He said he was now sharing the document, drawn up by Delroy Duncan KC and Ryan Hawthorne of the legal firm Trott and Duncan, so that government MPs could “form their own independent view” on the dispute, which a party statement this week acknowledged had taken a “financial, reputational and personal” toll.
Mr Dickinson’s letter claimed that the campaigns of the two leadership contenders had signed up “more members than has ever been done in our party history” — with more than 2,000 Bermudians joining the PLP.
Curtis Dickinson, one of two challengers for the leadership of the Progressive Labour Party, said his campaign had offered the PLP “detailed legal advice outlining our constitutional concerns” on August 28 and “sought to have the matter resolved internally”.
He said recourse to the court became necessary after “those concerns were not addressed”.
“Recent comments by the party leader suggested that the matter had now been resolved and that only our agreement was required to bring the proceedings to an end. That does not reflect the full position.
“While the party has now consented to the relief sought concerning the August 24 motions, significant questions remain regarding the verification process, the status of hundreds of members affected by it and whether future processes not contained in the constitution today can be applied to members who have already been accepted.
“The appropriate forum to secure clarity and finality is now the Supreme Court. A formal resolution ensures that these questions cannot simply arise again under a different process or interpretation.”
The letter maintained that the bulk of new members were enrolled by the Dickinson campaign. It said the process had been described variously as “a takeover or a Trojan Horse”, alluding to “hundreds of non-Bermudians” as well as a sweep of the ruling party’s ranks by the opposition One Bermuda Alliance.
Mr Dickinson stated his belief that “it is clear what is taking place”, adding that with the surge in members, “the impact they could have on our election and choice of leader for the country is apparent to everyone”.
“Undermining the will of the people is not how our party should be run and even more clearly not how our country should be run,” the letter said.
“It’s time for the party leader to respect the terms of our constitution and recognise that over 2,000-plus Bermudians have joined the party after being signed up by both the Hayward and Dickinson campaigns.
“They are entitled to vote alongside our loyal and longstanding members and are Bermudians who want to see progress in our party and our country. That warrants repeating — they are every bit as Bermudian as each of us and if we do not respect them, they will remember.”
The PLP announced on Monday that it had agreed not to contest the orders obtained through court by Mr Dickinson and plaintiffs Shea-tai Maurice Smith, Sheila Mareen Brown, Winifred Rose Stevens and Jay-Lee Maurice Smith. Dawn Simmons, the chairwoman of the PLP, and Patricia Basden, the party’s secretary-general, were named as defendants in the injunction.
The move was taken against two changes to the membership process, starting with a proposal that people who publicly campaigned against the party in the past two general elections should be prevented from automatically becoming members.
A second meant that people who were party members for less than a year would be ineligible to act as delegates at the upcoming conference and election.
Mr Dickinson said the campaigns had more than doubled the party ranks, which he said attested to public satisfaction with the process — only for rules to change “four month into the competition”.
He added: “That all changed on August 24 and after our list of new members had been submitted.” He said he had also been hit with “anonymous” attacks, including one sharing his personal mobile phone number.
Mr Dickinson’s letter stated that there had been “attempts to affect the number of new members”. After the courts ordered the party to share the list of new members submitted, he said the first list given by the party had 1,476 named, while a second, again ordered released by the court, had even fewer, at 1,103.
Mr Dickinson said he had accepted that the party’s executive team had been under “significant pressure” to compile the information. The legal dispute intensified last week over a further party meeting that was claimed to be in breach of the injunction.
Acting Chief Justice Shade Subair Williams said the defendants had failed to address the allegation, and that the plaintiffs were still entitled to get a full text of the membership process and a party membership list, which had not been provided.
Mr Dickinson’s letter said the failed submissions had put the executive team under “threat of court sanction”.
Mr Burt has defended the changes agreed on August 24 as justified. He also told The Royal Gazette this month that he did not believe there were more than ten members affected, and that only one formal objection had come in before the granting of the injunction.
Mr Dickinson’s letter disputed this, telling party members: “Does anyone believe that the party machine has been employed in response to one person? I do not.”
Both sides in the dispute have maintained that the differences ought to have been sorted out internally, rather than going before the courts.
The case is due to be heard again on Thursday.
While the plaintiffs have agreed to “formalise the now uncontested orders”, the Dickinson campaign has said “important legal and procedural matters” remained to be resolved in court.
The PLP has been approached for comment.
• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any libellous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers
