Oh, Fred Mitchell—because when you need a distraction, who better to step up to the podium with ignorance and bluster disguised as gravitas? The chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) has once again graced us with his unique blend of deflection and contempt, this time targeting the Leader of the Opposition, the Honorable Michael Pintard, over his entirely valid remarks concerning the appointment of not one, but two deputy police commissioners. Yes, Fred, because what the nation really needed was another lecture from you on how to misunderstand both the law and leadership in a single breath.

Let’s start with the substance—or rather, the lack of it—on Mitchell’s part. Pintard, to his credit, delivered a thoughtful critique, clearly stating, “We are in support of the prime minister’s proposal to appoint Sr. Deputy Commissioner Andrews. We are not in support of an appointment of an additional Sr. Deputy of Police. There is no provision in the law. While there has been precedent where it has been done, there is no provision in the law for a second deputy commissioner.” Now, pause here. No provision in the law. Not exactly a trivial point, wouldn’t you say? And yet Mitchell, rather than addressing this glaring issue, chose the well-worn path of ad hominem attacks and fear mongering.

Fred; precedent is not law. I’ll repeat that slowly for the folks in the back: Precedent is not law. It’s the bureaucratic equivalent of saying, “Well, we’ve done it before, so it must be fine.” Wrong. The legal foundation for appointing a second deputy commissioner is nonexistent, and no amount of Mitchell’s hand-waving changes that. If anything, Pintard is doing his job—calling out actions that lack statutory support and questioning decisions that could undermine the credibility of the very institution tasked with upholding the law.

But Mitchell? Oh no, he’s not interested in such pesky details. Instead, he’s busy peddling the narrative that Pintard is “unstable” and “unfit to lead.” Classic PLP strategy:  When you can’t defend the policy, attack the person. Because who needs substance when you have slogans and insults, right?

And then there’s the larger issue of governance—or, in the PLP’s case, the utter lack thereof. Mitchell has the audacity to cast stones while standing in a house not just made of glass, but riddled with cracks from years of scandals, corruption, and failure. From one debacle to the next, the PLP has managed to string together a legacy of mediocrity and mismanagement, with little to show for it other than empty promises to the very working poor they claim to champion.

A quick reminder, Fred: Not every criticism is an attack. Pintard’s concerns are rooted in the law and in the optics of this appointment’s potential to undermine public confidence. But Mitchell, as always, prefers to twist this into an opportunity to sow division, relying on what he must believe to be the electorate’s short memory and low expectations. Here’s the problem: the Bahamian people are smarter than you think, Fred. They can see through this charade.

And now, let’s address the elephant in the room—or should I say, the ticking time bomb that is the PLP’s new 90-day crime-fighting plan. Yes, folks, a 90-day plan, as if crime is a temporary inconvenience that can be swept under the rug with a catchy deadline. Let’s ask the obvious question: does this shiny new plan imply that every previous initiative was an abject failure? Of course it does. And here’s the kicker: by introducing this “bold new strategy,” the PLP is effectively hanging the outgoing Commissioner of Police out to dry, hoping we’ll all forget the years of failed policies that preceded it.

Fred, if this is what stability and leadership look like to you, I’d hate to see chaos. Instead of focusing on his petty war of words with Pintard, Mitchell might want to take a good, hard look at his own party’s failures—and then, perhaps, do us all a favor and sit this one out.

Because here’s the truth: the PLP’s playbook of “Hate Through Ignorance” is wearing thin. The Bahamian people deserve better than cheap theatrics, empty slogans, and leaders who are more interested in scoring political points than solving real problems. So, Fred, the next time you want to climb your rhetorical soapbox, perhaps come armed with facts, solutions, and a little humility. Until then, maybe it’s time for you to stop talking and start listening.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for reason, it is their nature.

END