A group of non-Hawaiians want their say in a court case against the Office of Hawaiian Affairs that asks the state agency to spend its money helping only those with 50 percent or more Native Hawaiian blood.

The irony is that the six Hawai'i residents, led by former Advertiser publisher Thur-ston Twigg-Smith, are on the opposite side of those bringing the lawsuit. Twigg-Smith and his associates want OHA dismantled because they feel it discriminates against non-Hawaiians such as themselves.

The case is Day v. Apoliona, which was filed in 2005 by Virgil Day, Mel Ho'omanawanui, Josiah Ho'ohuli, Patrick Kahawaiola'a and Samuel Kealoha, all of whom are at least 50 percent Hawaiian.

The suit argues that OHA has too many beneficiaries and that most of the agency's $28 million annual budget should be spent on people with at least 50 percent Hawaiian blood.

OHA officials say they have a mandate to help all Hawaiians.

In August, a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ordered U.S. District Judge Susan Oki Mollway to hear the case in her Honolulu court. Mollway had rejected the case last year.

The state attorney general's office filed a petition asking that a larger group of appeals court judges rehear the decision made by the three-member panel. Twigg-Smith's group opposes that request and wants Mollway to hear the case as ordered by the three-member panel.

Recently, attorney H. William Burgess requested intervenor status to counter the attorney general's request on behalf of Twigg-Smith and five others, all of whom had been involved in court cases seeking to dismantle Hawaiians-only programs.

The other five are James Kuroiwa, Patricia A. Carroll, Toby Kravet, Garry P. Smith and Earl F. Arakaki.

"As beneficiaries of Hawai'i's Ceded Land Trust ... they are among the equitable owners of the trust corpus which is the source of the money at issue in this case, i.e., the millions of dollars in ceded-land revenues the Office of Hawaiian Affairs has spent and continues to spend to lobby for the Akaka bill," Burgess wrote in his motion.

The Akaka bill could lead to federal recognition of a Native Hawaiian entity. The bill's supporters say it is necessary to stave off challenges by Burgess and others against programs and agencies that serve only Hawaiians or primarily Hawaiians.

The state attorney general's office is opposing Burgess' petition for intervention.

OHA Administrator Clyde Namu'o said he believes agency attorneys will also oppose Burgess' request. "I don't see them having any business in this lawsuit at all," Namu'o said.

Walter Schoettle, attorney for the five Hawaiians who brought the original lawsuit, did not return calls requesting comment.

Reach Gordon Y.K. Pang at gpang@honoluluadvertiser.com.