Further submission from Sonia P E Grant,
Bermuda
1. The Islands of Bermuda received her new
Governor, Sir Richard Gozney, and his spouse, Lady Gozney, on
11 December 2007. He arrived in Bermuda on the evening of the
advanced poll of our General Election and as such was in Bermuda
for a week into the lead up to our General Election held on Tuesday
18 December 2007.
2. Immediately after the General Election,
His Excellency the Governor was full of praise for the Parliamentary
Registrar and the way in which he had executed his job, noting
that the Parliamentary Registrar had carried out his role in a
very transparent manner.
3. His Excellency's observations are indisputable.
4. Imaginative television advertisements
and radio soundbites, highlighting the advance of Democracy in
Bermuda, in an all out effort to prompt individuals to register,
were the order of the day. Lists of registered voters who had
been challenged by party scrutineers, were duly published by the
Parliamentary Registrar in the local newspapers, with the registered
voters being challenged, asked to verify their registrations with
the Parliamentary Registrar, failing which they would be struck
off the Parliamentary Register.
5. The homeless who applied to be registered,
were registered.
6. In the context of Municipal elections
held by the Corporations of Hamilton and St. George, and pursuant
to The Municipalities Act 1923 [hereinafter called "the Legislation"],
the equivalent of the Parliamentary Registrar is the Secretary
to the Corporation of Hamilton and the Secretary to the Corporation
of St. George. Under the Legislation, they are deemed to be Registering
Officers.
7. The Parliamentary Registrar of the Bermuda
Government and the Registering Officers of the respective Corporations,
when performing their duties act in a quasi-judicial capacity.
This means that in the exercise of their roles under the Parliamentary
Election Act 1978, as amended, and the Legislation respectively,
they must have regard to the rules of Natural Justice. Openness,
Transparency and Fairness must be the order of the day.
8. The contrast between the behaviour of
the Registering Officer for the Municipal Election for the City
of Hamilton held on Thursday 26 October 2006 and the behaviour
of the Parliamentary Registrar with respect to Bermuda's General
Election held on 18 December 2007, is as different as night and
day.
9. Without doubt, the openness and transparency
for which the Parliamentary Registrar was lauded by His Excellency
The Governor, was non-existent in respect of the lead up to, and
the day of the Hamilton Municipal Election held on Thursday 26
October 2006.
10. The Hamilton Municipal Election held
on Thursday 26 October 2006 was the "Katrina" of all
Municipal Elections for the following reasons:
ELECTORAL REGISTER
(i) At the start of the said election, at
11.00 am, there was no complete Municipal Register, and the existing
Municipal Register became a shambles.
(ii) At the start of the said election,
the registering officer, Helen Kelly Miller, failed to provide
me a candidate, with a complete register.
(iii) Although, the Registering Officer
of the Corporation of Hamilton had received a legal opinion on
the 18th October 2006, which said opinion stated that the Registering
Officer had a discretion to change the names of nominees [of Municipal
Electors], she failed to advise the constituents of the City of
Hamilton, at all, much less in a timely manner, that she was prepared
to exercise her discretion to change the names of nominees of
Municipal Electors. The exercise of such discretion, to the best
of my knowledge, information and belief, had never been used from
the time the 1978 amendments to the Legislation were promulgated
and the discretionary provision, inter alia, introduced. As a
consequence the following individuals were denied the right to
vote because they did not know that, given that they would be
abroad at the time of the Hamilton Municipal election, as nominees
of municipal electors, they could have substituted someone else
in their place:
It is totally irrelevant whether the above named
individuals supported me or not.
(iv) After midnight, in the wee, wee hours
of election morning, the Registering Officer changed the names
of 14 nominees of some Municipal electors without telling anyone.
Furthermore, from 6 October 2006 to 25 October 2006 inclusive,
there were other changes of nominees, as well as additional municipal
electors who were added to the Municipal Register.
(v) The Registering Officer then failed
to provide a list of the changed nominees to me when I requested
the list just prior to the start of the election. The list was
only received by me at 9.15 pm after the election, when I requested
it for the second time.
(vi) The Registering Officer however did
provide a list of changed nominees to the Returning Officer at
approximately 12.15 pm on the day of the election, but failed
to provide me with a copy of the same list at the same time, despite
the fact that I had requested same just prior to the start of
the election.
(vii) Without writing to approximately eleven
individuals to advise them that they were about to be struck off
the Municipal Register for the Corporation of Hamilton, and for
no reason whatsoever, and clearly contrary to the provisions of
the Legislation, the Registering Office removed approximately
eleven individuals from the Hamilton Municipal Register which
included people who have lived in the City of Hamilton all of
their lives.
(viii) In each case, the individuals attended
at City Hall to vote, only to find that their names were not on
the Municipal Register, even though their names had been on the
Municipal Register for the 27th April 2006 Corporation of Hamilton
Election. Some of the individuals were Municipal Electors, others
were the Nominees of Municipal Electors. No one had received a
letter from the Registering Officer of the Corporation of Hamilton
to advise that their name was about to be removed from the Municipal
Register. Amidst confusion, their names had to be restored to
the Municipal Register, and each was allowed to vote.
(ix) For no legitimate reason whatsoever
and without any regard to the Legislation, Mr Cromwell Shakir's
name was removed from the Municipal Register. His name had been
on 27 April 2006 Municipal Register.
(x) Mrs Laquita Hill and her husband Mr
Kevin Hill submitted their registrations to the offices of the
Corporation of Hamilton at the same time. Mrs Laquita Hill was
registered. Mr Kevin Hill was not.
(xi) On Election Day, 26 October 2006, Mr
Kevin Hill attended the City Hall to check to see if he was registered
and was told by the Registering Officer that he was not registered.
He was also told by the Registering Officer that his wife Laquita
Hill, whose name was on the register, would not be allowed to
vote, if she came to City Hall to cast a ballot. As a consequence,
Mrs Laquita Hill did not attend at City Hall, and did not vote;
(xii) On election day, Mrs Anne Kast arrived
at City Hall only to find that despite handing her registration
to the late Mayor, she was not registered.
(xiii) The Legislation for the registration
of municipal electors requires that tenants, as opposed to owners
of real property, produce Landlord certificates. However at the
time of 26 October 2006 election, the Application forms for registration
failed to have this salient fact stated on the Application form.
In turn, this meant that the following people, having applied
to be registered, were placed on a pending Municipal Register,
because they had not provided their landlords' certificates:
— [A now Deceased individual]
Some of the above-named individuals were able
to produce landlord certificates, were duly entered on the Hamilton
Municipal Register and did vote. Other individuals were unable
to vote because they never produced their landlord certificates.
Indeed two individuals attended at City Hall on the evening of
election day and not being allowed to vote, left the premises
visibly disgusted.
(xiv) In the case of Ms Iva Jones [ante]
a long term resident of the City of Hamilton, she was told by
a Corporation of Hamilton staff member prior to the said October
2006 election that she was registered, only to find out on polling
day that she was not.
(xv) Further, there was a continuing muddying
of the legal waters by the Returning Officer [duly followed by
the Registering Officer] when the Returning Officer continually
said that the Registering Officer's discretion would only be exercised
for the change of nominees of Municipal Electors after the Notice
of the Election had been published, but there was no discretion
to register Municipal Electors. This cannot be so. If the discretion
exists to receive application forms from Municipal electors, it
must mean that if the discretion is exercised to receive the application
forms from Municipal Electors, then the Municipal Electors in
question have to be registered. Sadly, the whole relationship
between the Returning Officer and the Registering Officer, one
of pure bullying, reflects the sexism that would appear to be
on the rise in this community. In my humble opinion, in recent
times, the standing of women in this community is in decline.
THE RETURNING
OFFICER
(xvi) On Nomination day, 19 October 2006,
after nominations had closed, The Returning Officer, John Cooper,
a lawyer, usurped the role of the Registering Officer by making
a public announcement by way of VSB radio [and presumably VSB
television] that a change of nominees would be permitted, when
the Registering Officer had not make up her mind to exercise her
legislated discretion one way or the other.
(xvii) Moreover, having being told by the
Returning Officer of what he had done, the Registering Officer
did not set the record straight, publicly or otherwise. On Monday
23 October 2006, I telephoned the Registering Officer about the
pending Municipal Register [ante] that she had given me, when
the Registering Officer told me about the Returning Officer's
legal opinion which stated that the Registering Officer had a
discretion to allow a change of nominees after the Notice of Election
had been published. She repeatedly told me on the telephone, in
response to my two questions put to her, on Monday 23 October
2006 and Tuesday 24 October 2006 and Wednesday 25 October 2006,
that she had not made any changes to the Municipal register with
respect to a change of nominees, and that she would not be making
any changes to the Municipal register with respect to a change
of nominees. Subsequently, this was proven not to be true, because
on the 23 October 2006 she already begun to change the names of
nominees by adding David Sullivan's name to the Municipal Register.
(xviii) On the Eve of the election, late
in the afternoon of Wednesday 25 October 2006, the Returning Officer,
by way of a telephone conversation with the Registering Officer
[said telephone conversation overheard by Councillor Graeme Outerbridge,
who was in the Registering Officer's office in City Hall] threatened
the Registering Officer.
(xix) The Returning Officer told the Registering
Officer that if the Registering Officer did not change the names
of the nominees who had applied to have the changes made [after
the Notice of Election had been published], if the nominees desiring
to vote attended at City Hall to cast their ballots, he [the Returning
Officer] would give them ballot papers and allow them to vote.
This would be despite their names not being on the Municipal Register.
(xx) Once the telephone conversation between
the Returning Officer and the Registering Officer concluded, the
content of the said telephone conversation was relayed to Councillor
Graeme Outerbridge by the Registering Officer.
(xxi) David Sullivan is an individual who
was told by the Returning Officer prior to the election that if
the Registering Officer did not put David Sullivan's name on the
Municipal Register, if David Sullivan attended at City Hall to
vote, the Returning Officer would give him a ballot paper.
(xxii) On Nomination Day, 19 October 2006,
the Returning Officer [a voter on the Municipal Register for the
City of Hamilton] told a Member of The Corporation of Hamilton,
Acting Mayor and Senior Alderman, David Dunkley, that he [the
Returning Officer] supported the other candidate, Mr Sutherland
Madeiros.
(xxiii) As a voter on the Municipal Register
for the Corporation of Hamilton, the Returning Officer should
not have been allowed to act as Returning Officer for the Municipal
Election of Thursday 26 October 2006. This practice of allowing
Returning and Presiding officers to officiate in their own parliamentary
districts, that is to say in parliamentary districts where they
voted, had been abandoned by the Parliamentary Registrar of Bermuda
in the early 80s, and rightly so.
(xxiv) Moreover, as a voter on the Municipal
Register for the Corporation of Hamilton, the Returning Officer
should not have been allowed to act as a SOLE Returning Officer.
There should have been two officials as there has always been
in all of the previous Corporation of Hamilton elections, except
for the election of 27 April 2006, when the Returning Officer
told the Registering Officer that he did not need anyone to assist
him.
(xxv) By acting as the sole Returning Officer,
without any other additional election official present, during
the election of 26 October 2006, the ballot box was left unattended
three times, once when the Returning Officer went off to the bathroom,
taking the unused ballot papers with him; secondly, when the Returning
Officer cast his vote; and thirdly, when I saw the Returning Officer
outside of the polling station in the evening of election day,
just milling about.
(xxvi) The Returning Officer just does not
get it. The Returning Officer does not want to understand that
as a Returning Officer he had no discretion to exercise, with
respect to a changing of the names of nominees of municipal electors.
It was simply not his discretion. It was the discretion of the
Registering Officer. The Registering Officer could choose to exercise
her discretion or not. Once John Cooper, the lawyer, gave the
Corporation of Hamilton his opinion pertaining to the change of
nominees of municipal electors, he should have backed off. John
Cooper, the Returning Officer, had no discretion to exercise and
he should have left the matter alone, rather than cause the endless
confusion which resulted. And the fact that the Registering Officer
should invite the Bermuda Police to be stationed at the Polling
Station on election day, 26 October 2006, when she failed to do
anything about the Returning Officer's threats [re handing out
ballot papers to purportedly changed nominees not on the Municipal
Register] is simply outrageous! I do not recall any member of
the Bermuda Police Service being asked to attend at the Municipal
polling station in the City of Hamilton, previously.
(xxvii) By virtue of the fact that the Returning
Officer was a voter on Hamilton's Municipal Register, he could
only vote for one candidate, which he did, [none of the ballots
cast was spoilt] and was therefore biased, and under no circumstances
could he and did he exercise his role as Returning Officer in
a quasi-judicial capacity.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION
ACTS 1963 AND
1978
11. It is said that Parliamentary Election
Act 1963 applies to the Legislation. I do not agree. However,
as the Returning Officer believes it to be so, I must point out
that after the count of ballots, reconciliation of the ballot
papers is not required. The said 1963 Act is an anachronism of
the past and does not embody the principles of transparency and
accountability that one would expect in legislation pertaining
to any elections.
12. In the premises, was the Hamilton Mayoral
Election of Thursday 26 October 2006 an example of good governance?
13. Was the Hamilton Mayoral Election of
Thursday 26 October 2006 carried out in a transparent manner?
14. Was the Hamilton Mayoral Election of
Thursday, 26 October 2006 fair?
15. What happens when the Registering Officer
and/or the Returning Officer get it wrong?
16. At this stage, I have no confidence
in the ability of the Corporation of Hamilton, given the incumbent
Registering Officer and the Corporation of Hamilton's penchant
to continuously employ Mr John Cooper as a Returning Officer or
Presiding Officer, to administer elections in a fair and equitable
manner for all of her constituents, and if that is the case, the
Corporation of Hamilton's role in her elections must be relinquished.
17. Presently, there are no provisions for
advanced polling that applies to the Corporation of Hamilton elections.
[And being candid, one is left to say if the Registering Officer
and the Returning Officer cannot handle a normal election properly,
what hope would there be for an advanced poll?] Further, there
are no provisions for the deferring of Municipal elections before
voting starts, as with Bermuda's general elections. I know of
only one Commonwealth case, a Canadian case, where a judge stopped
an election before the voting started.
18. The right to vote is not a privilege.
The right to vote is a fundamental human right. In my two part
submission to the FAC, I am not questioning the outcome of the
Mayoral election of 26 October 2006, but I am questioning the
conduct of same. The only place for the questioning of the outcome
of an election is a court. Just because I failed in my Supreme
Court of Bermuda Election challenge of the Mayoral Election of
26 October 2006, it does not mean that the conduct of the said
Election was fine. I am taking a stand for the human rights of
the constituents of the City of Hamilton. They deserve better!
OPEN MEETINGS
19. The Corporation of Hamilton meetings
have not always been held in private. There was a time, albeit
brief, in the late 19th century or early 20th century when the
Corporation of Hamilton meetings were open to the public. Then
the Corporation reverted to closed meetings.
20. In the year 2000, at a full Corporation
of Hamilton meeting I moved that Corporation meetings be open
to the public. The Motion was seconded by Councillor Reginald
Minors. A full discussion was deferred to the next meeting. After
a full discussion at the following meeting, the motion was roundly
defeated. To the best of my recollection, it was only myself and
Councillor Minors who supported the motion.
21. In 2003, I put the same motion back
on the table. By that time, I may have been the Deputy Mayor and
Senior Alderman. Again the motion was rejected. However, as a
compromise, it was agreed that the Corporation of Hamilton would
publish an abridged version of its Minutes. The publication of
abridged Minutes never came to pass. It would have been for the
then Mayor to have moved matters along, but that was not the case.
22. Part of my platform for the two 2006
elections [April and October] was for open meetings. Needless
to say there are personnel matters that could never be part of
open Corporation of Hamilton meetings, in addition to other matters.
BERMUDA HOUSING
CORPORATION
23. From 2 October 2003 until 20 April 2006,
I served as the Deputy Mayor and Senior Alderman of the Corporation
of Hamilton. Part of my responsibilities included the finances
of the Corporation of Hamilton.
24. Because of my somewhat detailed knowledge
of the events transpiring at Bermuda Housing Corporation ["BHC"],
if there are lessons to be learned by the Corporation of Hamilton
from the BHC affair, it is simply this.
25. As elected officials, I believe that
we are obliged to enhance all operating systems. As a matter of
urgency, the Councillors and Aldermen of the Corporation of Hamilton
should demand that all expenditure of the Corporation of Hamilton
should be tabled at the Corporation of Hamilton meetings and approved
before the cheques are written. This was never the case in my
tenure, and would have become so had I become Mayor.
1 February 2008
APPENDIX A
CHRONOLOGY—19 TO 26 OCTOBER 2006
Thursday 19 October 2006—Nomination Day—The
Returning Officer usurps the role of The Registering Officer who
is akin to the Parliamentary Registrar.
Thursday 19 October 2006—Nomination Day—The
role of the Registering Officer is usurped because, after the
close of Nominations for the office of Mayor of The City of Hamilton,
the Returning Officer gave an interview to VSB indicating that
a change of nominees [of Municipal Electors] would be accepted
by the Registering Officer.
Thursday 19 October 2006—Nomination Day—After
giving the said press interview in the foyer of City Hall, the
Returning Officer goes to the Registering Officer and tells the
Registering Officer of the press interview he has just given.
Thursday 19 October 2006—Nomination Day—The
Registering Officer tells the Returning Officer that he should
not have made the statement about changes of nominees [of Municipal
Electors] being allowed.
Monday 23 October 2006—Sonia P E Grant
["SPEG"] calls the Registering Officer about a pending
Municipal Register. After that discussion, the Registering officer
says to SPEG that she is being asked to exercise her discretion
to change the names of nominees after the register had closed
on 5 October 2006. SPEG first asks the Registering Officer if
she has changed any names of nominees and is told by the Registering
Officer that she has not. Then SPEG asks the Registering Officer
if she would be changing the names of the nominees and is told
by the Registering Officer that she would not.
Tuesday and Wednesday 24 and 25 October 2006—SPEG
calls the Registering Officer about other matters. Each day SPEG
asks if she had changed the names of nominees, and secondly if
she would be changing the names of the nominees and was told repeatedly
by the Registering Officer that she had not made any changes and
that she would not. However, the Registering Officer has already
begun to alter the register, as on 23 October 2006, she has already
added the name of David Sullivan.
4.00 pm or thereabout Wednesday 25 October 2006—The
Returning Officer calls the Registering Officer at City Hall and
threatens her saying that if she [the Registering Officer] did
not put the change of names of nominees on the Municipal Register,
then on the next day, the day of the election, he [the Returning
Officer] would be giving ballot papers to the people whose names
should have been placed on the register, should they come to City
Hall to cast their ballots. During the telephone conversation
Councillor Outerbridge is in the Registering Officer's office.
After the telephone conversation concludes, Acting Mayor and Senior
Alderman David Dunkley enters the Registering Officer's office
to be told of the Registering Officer's telephone conversation
with the Returning Officer.
4.30 pm or thereabout Wednesday 25 October 2006—SPEG
receives back-to-back calls, first from Acting Mayor Dunkley and
then Councillor Outerbridge, advising that the Registering Officer
was more than likely going to put the change of nominees on the
Municipal Register. [SPEG WAS NEVER TOLD OF THE THREATS MADE BY
THE RETURNING OFFICER TO THE REGISTERING OFFICER ABOUT WHAT HE
WOULD DO IF THE NOMINEES' NAMES WERE NOT CHANGED]. [SPEG ONLY
HEARD ABOUT THE THREATS AFTER THE ELECTION PETITION HAD BEEN FILED].
5.05 pm or thereabout Wednesday 25 October 2006—SPEG
received a call from the Registering Officer asking her to meet
with the Registering Officer and Alderman Sutherland Madeiros
so that she could advise of her decision about the change of nominees.
SPEG stated that she was on her way to a 5.30 pm meeting and that
she would be unable to attend and that after the 5.30 pm meeting
she would be canvassing. SPEG did say that she would be able to
meet with her—the Registering Officer—the next morning
prior to the election.
APPENDIX B
AFFIDAVIT OF GRAEME PHELPS OUTERBRIDGE FOREIGN
AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OVERSEAS TERRITORIES INQUIRY
AFFIDAVIT OF GRAEME PHELPS OUTERBRIDGE
I, GRAEME PHELPS OUTERBRIDGE, of "Skylight"
6 Benevides Lane in the
Parish of Southampton, in the Islands of Bermuda,
MAKE OATH and SAY as
follows:
1. That the content of this my Affidavit is true
to the best of my knowledge and belief. That I am a Professional
Photographer.
2. That I was sworn in as a Councillor of the
Corporation of Hamilton on Thursday 20 April 2006 for a three
year term.
3. That it is my belief that Miss Sonia Grant
did not receive a fair election based on the events I witnessed
and heard.
4. That with respect to the 26 October 2006 Mayoral
election, on 19 October 2006, Nomination Day, I was in the office
of Kelly Miller, the Corporation Secretary at City Hall. Shortly
after nominations had closed at 1.00 pm, John Cooper, the Returning
Officer, entered the Secretary's office and told Kelly Miller
that he had told the press, specifically, Mr Bryan Darby of VSB,
that the changed nominees could vote. Kelly Miller told him "I
wish that you wouldn't have done that, John!" She indicated
that the Corporation had not received a legal opinion from its
lawyer and that he should have not made such a statement to the
media. Mr Cooper replied that it was his legal opinion that changed
nominees could vote. John Cooper was referring to those nominees
whose names were changed after to 5 October 2006. John Cooper
quickly left the office before Kelly Miller could speak further
on the matter.
5. That by the next week, which was the week
of the election, I went into Mrs. Miller's office at City Hall,
when she happened to be on to phone with, whom I later learnt
to be, John Cooper, the Returning Officer. Kelly Miller was arguing
on the phone with John Cooper. At that time Kelly Miller had not
acquiesced in changing the names of nominees after to 5 October
2006. Mrs Miller was still waiting to make a decision as Secretary
on the opinion of the Corporation of Hamilton's lawyers, Appleby
Hunter Bailhache, which came several days before the election.
John Cooper was adamant that the new names for the change of nominees
be added to the municipal register failing which, if Kelly Miller
did not agree with his opinion by the day of the election, John
Cooper would give to unregistered individuals ballot papers regardless
of what Kelly Miller said or did. All of this information was
shared with me by Kelly Miller after she had finished her telephone
conversation with John Cooper.
6. That during the same week of the election,
I again was in the office of the Corporation Secretary, Kelly
Miller, at City Hall, when the then Alderman Sutherland Madeiros
happened along with papers in his hand, these papers being nominee
forms for changing nominees.
7. That Alderman Sutherland Madeiros held up
the papers in his hand and said that he had a legal opinion that
he could proceed with what he was doing, and that he would continue
doing it. Kelly Miller was there. Acting Mayor David Dunkley was
there and was shaking his head.
8. Acting Mayor David Dunkley was concerned about
how things were being conducted. Acting Mayor Dunkley felt that
he could not get involved. Acting Mayor Dunkley indicated to me
that as the Notice of Election had been published, he could not
interfere with the Secretary's power over the election.
9. That Alderman Dunkley did agree however that
both candidates should be called in by the Secretary and be made
aware of any changes to the electoral process, so that candidates
would be on an equal footing.
10. That Alderman Dunkley supported this view
in Ms. Miller's office and I again called Kelly Miller before
the election and asked her to bring both candidates into City
Hall and inform them of the changes to the electoral process.
11. That in conclusion I would like to add that
in the early days of Mayor Bluck's tenure, perhaps the first week
of May 2006, I attended a meeting where the Mayor wanted my opinion
on Mrs. Miller's removal as Secretary of the Corporation of Hamilton.
12. That I was perplexed by this request and
asked what was the problem. It was indicated that she had problems
with her staff and that it would be best for the Corporation if
she went.
13. That later privately however, another Corporation
member stated that Ms. Miller had done such a good job solving
the many problems that the Corporation had on the docks that the
process had created enemies.
14. That my view on the matter was that there
not being any letters of warning on file, that it would legally
be seen as constructive dismissal and the Corporation would be
exposed to a very costly civil action.
15. That Mrs Miller was locked out of her office
and City Hall itself by the late Mayor Jay Bluck, the then Alderman
Sutherland Madeiros and Alderman William Black.
16. That she then had a forced sabbatical before
returning to her position as Corporation Secretary because the
members of the Corporation refused to give her a six figure golden
handshake, and in the absence of being given warnings, she could
not be dismissed.
17. That legal Counsel, Mello Jones & Martin,
retained by Mr. Bluck for the Corporation specializing in employment
law, gave the same advice as I had and the matter was dropped.
SWORN in the City of Hamilton in the)
Islands of Bermuda by the above-named)
GRAEME PHELPS OUTERBRIDGE)
the 31st day of January 2008)
BEFORE ME:
Larry
A Commissioner for the taking of Oaths
Affidavits and Declarations in the Supreme
Court of Bermuda
APPENDIX C
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID WAYNE DUNKLEY
FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
HOUSE OF COMMONS
OVERSEAS TERRITORIES INQUIRY
AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID WAYNE DUNKLEY
I, DAVID WAYNE DUNKLEY of 12 Point Shares Road in
the Parish of Pembroke HM 05 in the
Islands of Bermuda, MAKE OATH and SAY as follows:
1. That the content of this my Affidavit is true
to the best of my knowledge and belief,
That I am Business Owner.
2. That I am the nominee occupant of DWD Development
Group situated at 58 Victoria Street, City of Hamilton HM 12 in
the Municipal Register of the Corporation of Hamilton.
3. That on Nomination day, 19 October 2006, I
questioned John Cooper about the fact that he, John Cooper, had
told me previously that if I ran for Mayor and lost I would be
out of the Corporation of Hamilton altogether.
4. That I asked John Cooper on Nomination Day
how could Sutherland Madeiros be running for Mayor and be told
by John Cooper that if he [Sutherland Madeiros] lost, Sutherland
Madeiros would stay on The Corporation of Hamilton as an Alderman.
I asked John Cooper why he never got back to me to indicate his
change of opinion to me. John Cooper said: "Things change."
5. That I said to John Cooper on Nomination Day
that it appeared to me that John Cooper was a supporter of Sutherland
Madeiros. John Cooper said: "Yes I am."
6. That I said to John Cooper that if that was
the case he [John Cooper] should not be the returning officer.
I spoke of this incident to Councillors Courtland Boyle and George
Grundmuller when it first happened.
7. That on Monday 23 October 2006 at City Hall
in Mrs. Miller's office, Alderman Suthy Madeiros mentioned that
he could put nominees on the register because he had a legal opinion.
8. That I asked Mrs. Miller if she had a legal
opinion from our lawyers to confirm that. Mrs. Miller said yes.
9. That the next day, 24 October 2007 I called
Michael Fahy of Appleby Hunter Bailhache and Mr Fahy said that
he had given Mrs Miller a verbal opinion and that he had not given
her anything in writing.
10. That on Wednesday 25 October 2006 Alderman
Suthy Madeiros came to City Hall, waving some papers in hand and
said that he had just spoken to Alan Dunch and that Alan Dunch
approved that nominees' names could be changed and that Alan Dunch
would speak to John Cooper and John Cooper would call Kelly [Miller].
11. That later on that day, I walked back into
Mrs Miller's office when she was telling Councillor Graeme Outerbridge
that John Cooper had told her that he [John Cooper] would give
ballot papers to people whose names she did not put on the register
if they came to vote at the election. I left the room and went
back to speak to Mrs Rochester.
SWORN in the City of Hamilton)
in the Islands of Bermuda by the above-)
named DAVID WAYNE DUNKLEY)
the 31st day of January 2008)
BEFORE ME:
Michael Telemaque
A Commissioner for the taking of Oaths
Affidavits and Declarations in the Supreme
Court of Bermuda
| 
