Just when you thought that the country’s top executive, Prime Minister, Philip Davis K.C., was displaying some semblance of commonsense, as he tasked  Attorney General Ryan Pinder with reviewing the  recent Baha Mar court ruling and its implications for The Bahamas. Just when the government seemed to had taken a wait-and-see approach, a decision which reflected a more cautious stance that some viewed as necessary given the diplomatic sensitivities surrounding the case, especially considering the Bahamas’ economic and political relationship with the United States. And while the government was also attempting to downplay any other teffects that it may have on The Bahamas, it would appear that Prime Minister Davis left his office door opened just a little bit too long.

 So in saunters the country’s top diplomat, the Hon. Fred Mitchell, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and all “hell and darkness” followed; was that too dark too quick?  Mitchell who seems more busied with ‘picking fights’ with the United States justice system; fights which in my opinion are quite unnecessary, as was the very first intervention by the Christie Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government in the Baha Mar matter. Instantly, the country’s top executive then seemed convinced to throw caution into the wind as he now seeks to defend the unnecessary fight that the top diplomat has picked.

We have seen this show before.

“PM DEFENDS MITCHELL’S REMARKS ON BAHA MAR COURT RULING” – The Tribune

Excerpt from this article; “PRIME Minister Philip “ Brave” Davis defended Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell’s critical response to a recent New York State Supreme Court ruling, which awarded Baha Mar’s original developer, Sarkis Izmirlian, over $1.6bn in damages in a fraud and breach of contract case against the main contractor, China Contraction America (CCA).

Mr. Mitchell, the Minister of Foreign Affairs dismissed fraud allegations involving the Christie administration officials during the Baha Mar saga as ‘salacious’, arguing that no evidence supported the accusation.

He accused Izmirlian of promoting a narrative misaligned with the facts. 

He urged the public to approach the commentary on the US ruling with caution and advised Bahamians to be ‘skeptical’ about information related to the judgment.

His comments sparked backlash.  The Nassau Guardian reported last week Tuesday that former Supreme Court Justice Jeanne Thompson said Mr. Mitchell showed a ‘total lack of diplomatic behavior’ with his ‘intemperate’ comments.

‘I have no problem with the chairman raising to defense of party officials, family and friends,’ Justice Thompson wrote. “However, I take strong exception to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of our nation lambasting the judge of a friendly country because he did not like is ruling, and vilifying a foreign resident and investor because he dared to bring an action to secure his right and succeeded.”

Mitchell’s comments, which dismissed allegations of corruption within the Christie administration as “salacious” and urged Bahamians to approach the ruling’s commentary with skepticism, were met with criticism from figures such as former Justice Jeanne Thompson. She argued that his tone lacked the diplomatic restraint expected of a Foreign Minister. Moreover, members of the opposition, such as Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Michael Pintard, suggested that Mitchell’s remarks may compromise the perception of Bahamian diplomacy and investor confidence in the nation.

Question: When Fred Mitchell urges “the public to approach commentary on the US ruling with caution and advised Bahamians to be ‘skeptical’ about information related to the judgment”; does this bit of advice also apply to his commentary and any and all information coming from the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) as a party and a government?

Another question:  With his constant unsolicited rhetoric from the New Day government, in my mind, raises the question of if Fred Mitchell is acting as the country’s best interest and the country’s top diplomat or in the best interest of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) as its chairman?

And yet another question; Can Mitchell actually wear both “hats” and render an objective point of view; a diplomatic point of view on this issue?

The chairman of the Progressive Liberal party (PLP) seems to want to be able to get in the front of this “train wreck” because there are very serious allegations brought up in the ruling by the US Supreme Court that tends to shed The Bahamas’ government in a very poor light.

The ruling pointed out, “Baha Mar financial crisis would have been averted if its main contractor had properly used $54 m to pay the project’s sub-contractor rather than fund the British Colonial purchase, a U.S. judge ruled”.

Apparently it was the court’s ruling that CCA purposely diverted much needed capital from the Baha Mar development only to go on to use it or misuse these fund to invest in another capital project; did the Christie administration have any knowledge of this at the time?

If so, who knew what and when did they know it?

Indeed, this situation underscores the challenges of balancing national interests with party loyalty, especially when navigating high-stakes international litigation involving significant investment and reputational issues but can one reasonably carry out this balancing act?

 The ongoing review by the Attorney General may clarify the government’s official stance, but the controversy highlights the tensions within Bahamian leadership as they balance diplomacy, political image, and public accountability in the face of complex international rulings.

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

END