While the international community continues to voices concerns over corrupt practices in the Bahamas, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government and its agents refuse to heed the warnings and continue to march the country down a dark road as they [the PLP] continue in practices that are seen to many as corrupt, to protect the party’s reputation but to the country’s detriment.  These would be the very same men and women that  label themselves as being ‘nationalists’, claiming to put country before party, while attempting to brand those that stand against them as ‘unpatriotic’.

“US warning over govt. corruption – Reports highlight failings in contracts.  Frequest concerns.” – The Tribune.

Excerpt from this article; “The US State Department indentified the governments ineffectiveness at implementing corruption laws as the reason officials engage in illegal practices without consequences, citing a vulnerable contract procument process in a newly released report.”  While there are many of us that will indeed look at this report and ask ourselves, ‘Who is the United States to talk?’, we must realize that we have long since entered a global community of sorts and the world is indeed watching as has become evident by the released of the ‘Wiki leaks cables’ and the more recent ‘Panama Papers’.

As this report is released, I have this feeling of déjà vu, as I feel that this concern that been raised before about two to three years ago and has been ignored.

Following in the spirit of not adhering to advice against corrupt and illegal and practices that represent a blatant misuse of power and authority, Foreign Affairs minister, Fred Mitchell continues on his defense of his right and privilege to violate the basic constitutional, hard fought for rights of other Bahamian citizens; one being their right to privacy in a lengthy press release issued on the 13 April 2016; entitle ‘In response to the FNM letter to the Speaker on Parliamentary Privilege – Long held Constitutional rights must be protected against use of unfettered wealth” and my question still stand for Minister Mitchell to answer as he argues for his constitutional rights; who is protecting the constitutional rights of the persons whose privacy you wish to invade?

I am quite aware that many will not draw the parallel between the these two cases, either through ignorance or denial or both, so I will not belabor the obvious and I now leave these poor lost souls alone to figure it all out.

The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is within their nature.

END