He said it.

No-one predicted this bombshell from the Emerald Financial court case:

Exclusive: Ewart Brown wanted share of company's business, court told

This is not the first time anyone will have heard a claim such as this. These stories have been the talk of Bermuda for a decade. But this allegation was public, substantive and under oath - which adds serious weight to it. Not to mention that the issue was introduced by the Prosecution not the Defence - and that there is nothing for the defendants to gain by making this claim.

The corruption allegation came out as a peripheral issue.

Not surprisingly the response was vintage Brown - go on offense.

Unfortunately he shot an air ball, with the old faithful attempted media injunction. This one ironically failed based on the precedent from his own earlier failed media injunctions.

On to Plan B:

Dr Brown issued a statement after the hearing, saying of Mr Bolden's allegations: "This outrageous accusation is a total fabrication."

He condemned Mr Bolden for bringing his wife Wanda Brown's name into it and said: "This will result in a separate legal response."

Mr Pettingill said Dr Brown planned to mount a private prosecution against Mr Bolden, alleging he had committed perjury.

This is the first time that the kind of rumours that have consumed the island have been aired not just in the court of public opinion, but a court of law - lending them a real sense of credibility and surely opening the door for others to come forward.

I suspect that the primary audience for a perjury 'private prosecution' warning against Mr. Bolden is a shot across the bow for anyone else that might be considering telling their story publicly.

Mr. Bolden's claim is out there and can't be taken back. A lawsuit won't change much.

Defamation cases are famously difficult to bring and often end badly. But if this opens the Anthony Weiner like floodgates, as these things so often do, then who knows where it could lead.

Note that his prior defamation suit remains farcically un-acted upon four years later - as I can personally attest.

I struggle to see this ending up in the perilous world of proving defamation in court. The former Premier would have to testify, and be cross examined. There's no telling where that leads. Not gonna happen.

A court of law isn't Parliament, where you can defame people at will while hiding behind Parliamentary privilege.

Just ask Mr. Archer.

| More