Just months after explicitly stating that the Davis [New day] administration does not support the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and then going on to further explain in detail as to why and on the very same day that it is announced in the press that a jury has been impanelled for the Kirk Cornish trial; Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government is now saying that his government supports the FOIA and goes on to attack the media for taking his comments out of context, as he claims that he was being facetious when he once claimed that the New Day government did not have the time for the FOIA.

I now see an attempt to try and put the reckless political rhetoric toothpaste back into the tube.

It is now appears that each and every time that someone in the New Day government says something totally stupid and reckless they then attempt to “walk it back”, by either claiming to have “misspoken” or having been “misinterpreted”; it is just simply amazing to watch.

“Govt ‘supports’ FOIA, minister insists” – The Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Months after he declared the Davis administration “opposes” the idea of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell said yesterday the media took his comments too literally.

Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Michael Pintard raised the matter in the House of Assembly as he accused the government of failing to be transparent.

But Mitchell said, “You keep talking about a Freedom of Information Act. The problem I have is that the journalists in the country, present company excepted, are too literal, and so when I’m engaged in irony and sarcasm they go running off the deep end about what I said and what I don’t believe and what I say. You know, don’t be mistaking me for that.

“Clearly, the government’s position is it supports the Freedom of Information Act.”

The discussion surrounding FOIA has been ongoing since the first FOI bill was passed in 2012 under the last Ingraham administration.

The revamped FOI Bill was passed in 2017 under the Christie administration.

Since then, administrations have made repeated promises to fully implement the act.

While the Minnis administration got as far as setting up an office and appointing Information Commissioner Keith Thompson, it did not fulfill its campaign promise of full implementation of the act.

Ahead of the 2021 general election, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) listed the full implementation of FOIA in its pre-election document, “Our Blueprint for Change”.

In January, amid renewed discussions over the lack of progress on the matter, Mitchell, in an interview with ZNS Grand Bahama, said, “We oppose this Freedom of Information Act idea.”

His comment came one week after Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis told reporters that the full implementation of FOIA, though a campaign promise, was not a pressing issue for the government at this time.

Yesterday, Mitchell said it is simply a matter of priorities.

“The prime minister before I spoke, said that the question was expense and priority, right?” he said.”

It seems like there has been some backtracking and contradictory statements from Fred Mitchell regarding the government’s stance on the Freedom of Information Act. Mitchell initially stated that the government does not support FOIA, only to later claim he was being facetious and that the government does indeed support it. This has led to criticism and accusations of lack of transparency from the public.

It is important for government officials to be clear and consistent in their statements, especially on important matters such as transparency and accountability. The media play a crucial role in holding public figures accountable, so it’s understandable that they would take statements seriously.

It appears that there may be a disconnect between what was initially said and what is now being claimed, leading to confusion and skepticism among the public. It is vital for transparency and trust in government that statements and positions are clearly communicated and followed through on.

Is it now out of a sense of “priority” that Mr. Mitchell has done a complete 180 and was that “priority” to the people or to “fall in line” with the prime minister, whose priorities concerning this piece of legislation were totally different from that of the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP)?

Who was the Chairman speaking for at that time if his “priorities” were not those of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and given this blatant conflict of “priorities”, can Fred Mitchell as Minister for Foreign Affairs be trusted to speak on behalf of the Bahamian people if it goes against his “priorities”?

END

Last week the Auditor General, Terrance Bastian produced a report that was table in the House of assembly, which suggested; “Taxpayers suffer $7m overruns on CARIFTA, Bahama Games” – The Tribune Business.

Excerpt, from this article; “BAHAMIAN taxpayers incurred an extra $7m bill to cover cost overruns for two much-hyped sporting events that were hosted last summer, the Government’s financial watchdog has revealed.

The Auditor General’s Office, in reports tabled in the House of Assembly, revealed that the Government overshot its upgraded $4.9m spending allocation for the 50th CARIFTA track and field championships and Bahamas Jubilee Games through a near-total $12m outlay on the two events.

This $7m overrun occurred despite the Government, in its 2002-2023 supplementary Budget, more than doubling spending on the Bahamas Jubilee Games from the original $1.5m to $3.5m – an increase of $2m. CAR- IFTA expenditure was also increased, albeit by a more modest $400,000, to take it from an initial $1m to $1.4m in the same 2022-2023 fiscal year.

However, even these increases proved woefully insufficient to cover the Government’s ultimate outlays, which came to $5.559m for the Bahamas Jubilee Games and $6.43m for hosting the regional CARIFTA championships.

When the figures are combined, the total $11.989m total exceeds the $4.9m supplementary Budget allocation by more than $7m or 145 percent – meaning the spend is more than double what was predicted. And the Auditor General’s Office, in its CARIFTA report, reveals that the net loss, or deficit, incurred by The Bahamas from hosting the event was almost 20 times’ what was forecast.”

For some strange reason with this simple piece of accounting, that only laid out the facts; some very simple facts without any accusations, all “hell” broke loose and most of us just watched in amazement.

First there was the Minister involved defending something that most did not feel needed defending;

“Bowleg defends oversight of games” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from his article; “Minister of Youth, Sports and Culture Mario Bowleg claimed yesterday he specifically requested that the auditor general conduct an audit of the CARIFTA Games 2023 and The Bahamas Jubilee Games, and said he felt disrespected that while Auditor General Terrance Bastian provided a draft report to his ministry for feedback, he did not release to the minister a final report before it was tabled in Parliament on Wednesday.

However, there is no requirement in law or in practice for the auditor general to have alerted the minister of a final draft.

Under the constitution, the auditor general is an independent position.

As a matter of practice, his office provides impacted entities opportunities to respond to findings and provide explanations, but Bowleg acknowledged that his ministry never responded to the draft audits which raised concerns about how public monies used for those games were handled.

Under Article 136(5) of the constitution, “In the exercise of his functions…the auditor general shall not be subject to the direction or control of any other person or authority.”

The minister also insisted that notwithstanding anything the auditor general reported, “There was no overspending of funds” on the games.”

Read that last line again, I underlined it for ease of reference.

Really, Mr. Minister?

The Minister feels disrespected after being provided a draft copy of the audit report that he requested and did not respond to but feeling out of some sort of courtesy  that the Auditor general should have given him first look at the final report when by the constitution he does not have to because he does not report to him; am I getting this right?

I remember one time that a report was given to a Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister; it was only seen again when the media got” wind of it” and found that it was “lost’ on this persons desk in the fear that this person may have lost their job at the time, their words, lose their jobs by whom and why?

Bringing the media into this, the second attack was actually against the media for them simply doing their jobs in this matter; “Mitchell attacks media over audit reporting” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Fred Mitchell yesterday responded to the auditor general’s audits on The Bahamas Jubilee Games and the CARIFTA Games 2023 by accusing newspapers of irresponsible reporting, and questioning whether the auditor general gave impacted entities an opportunity to respond to the findings.

Yesterday, his colleague, Minister of Youth, Sports and Culture Mario Bowleg acknowledged that his ministry was presented with draft audits and given an opportunity to respond, but did not do so because it did not get answers from the individuals responsible for the operations of the games.

The audits were tabled in Parliament on Wednesday.”

The only thing that I can say whenever Fred Mitchell gets into a situation that is clearly none of his business and that he only makes worst by this contributions is “Who authorized pump 10?”’

If I were the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), I would find a way to limit his reach but they fought a “bloody” fight for him in their last convention, so I feel it is clear that they love what he contributes; I feel the older and the more sensible person in the organization know a lot better though; we can hope and pray.

But then as if the contribution by Fred Mitchell was not damaging enough, the CARIFTA committee chairman seem hellbent to out do everyone on this matter;

“CARIFTA committee chair calls audit ‘garbage’”  – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Lynden Maycock, the certified public accountant who was chairman of the Local Organizing Committee (LOC) of the CARIFTA Games 2023 hosted by The Bahamas, said he did not seize the opportunity to respond to adverse findings contained in a draft report of the auditor general on the financial management of that event because he viewed the audit as “garbage”.

“I wouldn’t even dignify that and say that’s an audit report,” Maycock said.

“I call that a garbage report. I wouldn’t even dignify it saying it was an audit report, because it was not.”

In that audit tabled in Parliament last Wednesday, the auditor general, Terrance Bastian, found that policies pertaining to the request for funds, purchasing and procurement, and allocation of funds for the games were not adhered to, and there was a deficit of $829,821.37.

The audit notes that the government initially budgeted an amount of $1 million for the CARIFTA Games.

Maycock said the games were “grossly under budgeted”.

“The government of The Bahamas was only acting in a capacity as a guarantor of the games, and so wherever [there were] any shortfalls of any monies then the government would step in,” he said.

Responding to a question from The Nassau Guardian, Maycock said the findings relating to the financial management of the games were “totally incorrect”.

He said, acceptable procedures were followed “absolutely to the T”.

In a statement, Mitchell said, “It is tiresome to do so but it bears repeating: be careful how newspapers rush to alarmist and tendentious headlines about public expenditure, without hearing the other side. When the facts are revealed, we are satisfied that it will be clear that the deliberate and destructive innuendo of public malfeasance by the newspapers, is misplaced and maliciously conceive

The New Day government’s reaction to the Auditor’s report has been quite suspicious, to say the very least. If we all remember it was this very same Auditor General whose word was “gospel” when it came to trying to demonize the Free National Movement (FNM) over its handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Dorian but today the same man’s words are simply “blasphemous” when merely suggesting that there was a cost overrun at the recent CARIFTA and Bahama Games.

From what I have read there has not been one accusation made by the Auditor General in the matter, he simply reported what the numbers said…….but it would seem that some may not have wanted the public to know what the numbers had to say.

We now wonder what else may have been simply buried, covered up.

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

END

There are just times when you listen to someone and can only ask yourself; “who is this person talking to?”

Is he talking to us or the voices in his head?

“PM dismisses concern GBPA dispute will undermine investor confidence” – The Tribune

“Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis during a walk through Downtown Nassau on April 10, 2024.

Excerpt from this article;

PRIME Minister Philip “Brave” Davis dismissed concerns that the government’s dispute with the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) undermines investor confidence and suggested that investors already lacked interest in the island.

His comments came as some GBPA licensees in Grand Bahama lamented the tension between the government and the GBPA.

“Look at what is happening in the country,” Mr. Davis told reporters after a walkabout of East Bay Street. “We have billions of dollars in the pipeline already agreed to and more about to come.”

“If it’s going to destroy investor’s confidence, why are they still coming? The number of projects I still have on my desk to talk about and to deal with are astronomical. The challenge, why is this capital not being attracted to Freeport?

“It’s being attracted in Exuma, being attracted to Cat Island, it’s being attracted to Abaco, to Bimini, to the cays and the Exumas. Why not Grand Bahama, and that’s just the question we have to answer.”

Why is this capital not being attracted to Freeport?

With all due respect but maybe Mr. Prime Minister your answer, of why we have investments in the other islands and not in Freeport, Grand Bahama is because of the “GBPA dispute is undermining investor confidence”, the same dispute that you are attempting to convince the people that would not “undermine investor confidence”; I mean I am just suggesting that this is very STRONG possibility.

And while you ask the question of “why is this capital not being attracted to Freeport?” what about the billions of dollars of investments that Deputy Prime Minister Chester Cooper brags about;

“DPM says more than $2 billion in investments for GB” – February 22, 2024

Excerpt from this article;

 FREEPORT, Grand Bahama – Major new investments for Grand Bahama will provide jobs, construction, and business opportunities, said Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism, Investments and Aviation the Hon. Chester Cooper during the opening of the Grand Bahama Business Outlook on Thursday, February 22 at the Grand Lucayan resort.

Grand Bahama, he said, is the fastest growing island in the country when it relates to air arrivals, and the third fastest growing island overall.”

One thing that is very clear is that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Investment are not on the same page and maybe, and this is only suggestion, these two ministers should sit down and talk before a person sticks a microphone in their face; otherwise someone may begin to believe that neither of you knows what you all are doing or just begin to believe that one or both of you are just plain lying and you may begin to lose even more voter confidence.

END

     In this morning’s Nassau Guardian in an article with the caption “No govt ploy to take over GBPA – Mitchell says PM seeking to avoid acrimony with Port”; Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) attempted to dispel the rumors that the New Day government is trying to take control of the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) but it would seem that the statement only raised more questions than answers.

Mitchell is quoted as saying; “The Davis administration’s fight with the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) is not a part of some “ploy” by the government to take over the entity, but simply an effort to improve the lives of Grand Bahama residents, Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell said”

Mitchell said investors have walked away from Grand Bahama due to the difficult red tape laid out by the GBPA, as he appealed to Bahamians across the political divide to get on board with the idea that Freeport needs to become a Bahamainized city.”

He called on right-thinking Bahamians to support the efforts of Prime Minister Philip Davis in his battle against the owners of the GBPA.”

Here the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Fred Mitchells attempts to invoke the “us again them” mentality amongst the people and like a PLP troll asked me this morning: “Are you with the government or with the Port?”, all because I questioned the approach taken by the New Day government in recouping the moneys owed but since the clarification by the “Hon.” Fred Mitchell this morning; I must say that I have even more questions.

My first question obviously is, when Fred Mitchell says that Freeport needs to be a Bahamainized city, exactly what does he mean?  And what are they now?

Mr. Mitchell tends to suggest that if the GBPA were to come up with the money that is owed; then this period of Bahamainization would begin, so my next logical question is;

If the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) actually comes up with the money that is owed; how will that make Freeport “Bahamainized” and how would that improve the lives of Grand Bahama residents and how would that do away with the “difficult red tape laid out by the GBPA?

It is my opinion that the only way to do either of these things is if the government is planning on taking control of Freeport by taking control of the GBPA and we must remember that at one point is time the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) had “eyed [a] stake in the GB Port Authority, is this their way of finally acquiring it? But they say that this is not about that, right?

It is move like that that makes a person have trust issues in their government, because they are saying that this is not a move to acquire the Grand Bahama Port Authority, but it’s a “textbook” hostile takeover.

Then there are the billions in investments that the New day government has claimed to have lined up; if the GBPA is still in place, because they have settled their debt with the government, will these investors not “walk away”, as the chairman has claimed that others have already have?

The only way that I can see the new day government achieving what their chairman says that their goals really are is by taking control of the GBPA, but like he says, that is not what this is about …..right?

END

“Anti-gang bill tabled” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“A person convicted of involvement in gang activity would be liable to a $100,000 fine and a 25-year prison term, under the Anti-Gang Bill, tabled in the House of Assembly yesterday.

A gang leader or member who commits one or more of the 15 offenses listed in the bill as gang activity would be subject to the specified penalty.

These activities include, among other things, recruiting someone to join a gang; committing an offense for the financial benefit of a gang; instructing a gang member to commit a serious offense; threatening someone with retaliation in response to violence against a gang member/leader; or endangering someone’s life or causing damage to property on behalf of a gang.

Under the bill, someone who performs an act as part of a condition for a gang membership or who professes to be a gang member in order to promote a gang or intimidate someone to join a gang would face up to seven years in prison.

If someone dies as a result of gang activity, the person responsible for the killing would face life in prison.

The bill also carries a prison term for people who harbor gang leaders or members, including parents of children engaged in the activity. This would carry a prison term of up to 20 years.

A person who commits retaliation against someone, their relatives, friends, associates or property would face a prison term of up to 20 years.

This relates to retaliation against someone who refuses to be a part of a gang; who leaves a gang; who gives information to police about a gang or gang activity; who gives evidence in the prosecution of a gang leader/member; or who refuses to comply with a gang leader’s or member’s order, among other scenarios.

The bill also includes stiff penalties for knowingly counseling, giving instructions to, financing or supporting a gang member in furtherance of the gang’s participation or involvement in gang-related activity. A conviction on this offense would bring a prison term of up to 25 years.

In cases where the gang leader or member is a child and the person convicted of sheltering them is a parent/guardian, the court “shall take into consideration mitigating factors such as efforts made by the person convicted to reform or rehabilitate the child”.

The bill also carries a penalty of up to 25 years for people who knowingly conceal the identity of a gang leader or gang member or the occurrence of a gang related activity.

Someone convicted of recruiting a gang member would face up to 20 years in prison. If the person recruited is a child, that sentence would increase to up to 25 years.

The bill would also make it an offense to profess to be a part of a gang in order to gain a benefit, even if this declaration is false. A conviction under this offense would carry a prison term of up to seven years.

Aiding, abetting, or promoting gang-related activity, or being an accessory after the fact would be subject to a prison sentence of no more than 20 years.

Being in possession of a bullet proof vest, firearm, or prohibited weapon for gang-related activity would bring a fine of $100,000 and a prison term of no more than 25 years.

A police officer would be able to arrest someone without a warrant if he or she has reasonable cause to suspect the person is a gang leader, gang member, is involved in gang-related activity, or has committed an offense included in the bill.

The bill would allow the court to order a person convicted of a related offense to forfeit property which was intended for gang-related activity.

A gang is defined as three or more people, whether formally or informally organized, “who act alone or in concert with each other with the aim of participating in gang-related activity, and includes a group declared a gang by the Supreme Court”.

What I find amusing is that by this very vague definition; every member of any political organization and even some churches, can be argued to be members of a gang and carrying out gang activity – and don’t forget dem “evil” masons.

I know I am going to get calls on that.

So, the country asked the New Day government to do “something” to mitigate the crime problem and we get a very vaguely written bill by two or maybe even three King’s Councils; I just know that when King Charles comes to town later this year he will be taking these honors back; embarrassing him in such a manner.

I agree that something must be done to mitigate the crime problems in the country but is this new crime initiative moving us toward that goal?

Like the adage says; “Prevention is better than cure”; which would be to say that would it not be more advantageous to put more money into education on crime prevention at the primary school level and throughout the school program, then dealing with crime after it has become a problem?

To my knowledge some programs that actually this already exists, so wouldn’t it or shouldn’t it be more productive to put more money into these programs?

At this time I am only attempting to offer what I feel is a more feasible solution to the vexing problem of crime and attempt to prevent this slope down which we quickly slip.

END