And yet again we have Chairman Fred Mitchell of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) riding into battle against one of the greatest threats to modern politics: people seeing what their government is doing.

In his latest voice note, Mr. Mitchell appears to have discovered a new menace to democracy — cameras.

Apparently, according to the Chairman, the suggestion by Opposition Leader Michael Pintard that proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) be televised amounts to an attempt to “weaponize” the committee.

Weaponize it.

Not misuse public funds.

Not hide contracts.

Not bury reports.

Not delay transparency legislation for years.

No, the real danger is apparently allowing Bahamians to watch the proceedings with their own eyes and make up their own minds.

One almost must admire the creativity.

The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) exists for one purpose above all others: to scrutinize government spending and hold the executive accountable for how taxpayers’ money is used. It is literally Parliament’s financial watchdog, designed to ask questions, sometimes uncomfortable questions and demand answers which at this point seem to be uncomfortable answers. Transparency is not a bug in the system; transparency is the system.

So, the obvious question becomes:

How exactly does televising the proceedings “weaponize” the PAC?

Would cameras somehow alter the evidence?

Would microphones change the figures in an audit report?

Would public access mysteriously transform accounting questions into political attacks?

Or is the concern simply that ordinary Bahamians might actually hear the questions being asked and the answers being given?

Mr. Mitchell warned that public hearings would allow “biased, half-baked information” and “untested truths” into the public domain.

That is certainly an interesting concern considering that public hearings exist precisely so evidence can be examined, witnesses questioned and claims tested in the open rather than behind closed doors.

If information is weak, expose it.

If allegations are unfounded, dismantle them publicly.

If the facts support the government’s position, then transparency becomes its greatest ally rather than its greatest enemy.

Unless, of course, transparency itself is the problem.

This is where the Chairman’s comments become less about the PAC and more about a broader governing philosophy that seems increasingly uncomfortable with sunlight.

For years Bahamians have heard promises about openness, accountability and modern governance while important transparency measures, including the full implementation of Freedom of Information legislation, remain unfinished business. Critics have repeatedly argued that governments of every stripe are far more enthusiastic about transparency while in Opposition than while sitting around the Cabinet table.

Mr. Mitchell now appears to be encouraging the PLP and it’s supporters to adopt the same defensive crouch: resist public hearings, resist scrutiny and resist giving Bahamians a front-row seat to the management of their own money.

His message to the PLP was clear:

“Be on your guard.”

Guard against what exactly?

The public?

The taxpayers?

The voters who funded the expenditure under review?

Because if a committee created to examine public spending becomes dangerous the moment the public is allowed to watch it, then perhaps the problem is not with the cameras.

Perhaps the problem is with what the cameras might see.

After all, accountability only feels like a weapon when you are standing on the wrong end of it.

The Bahamian people deserve better.

END