Apparently, the people of Grand Bahama must now pass a patriotism test before asking what their government has accomplished.

In his published national address on the GBPA arbitration, Prime Minister Philip Davis declared:

“I invite you to seriously rethink your priorities. There is no honour in hoping your country loses so you can score political points.”

He added:

“The Tribunal rejected the Port Authority’s arguments — and you should have, too.”

There is, of course, a difference between hoping The Bahamas loses and questioning whether the government has delivered. A prime minister should understand that distinction without requiring a tribunal to explain it unless he is hoping the average Bahamian does not.

The government is not the country. The PLP is not the country. And asking uncomfortable questions about either is not an act of national betrayal, it is simply asking for the accountability and transparency that the government promised.

Grand Bahamians can want their island to prosper while doubting the administration’s performance. They can disagree with the GBPA and still question the government’s legal strategy. Citizenship does not require anyone to applaud on cue.

What, exactly, did the government win?

The arbitration produced a mixed outcome—not the uncomplicated victory suggested by the political victory lap.

The tribunal rejected the government’s $357 million reimbursement claim under the contractual provision on which it relied. According to Davis’s parliamentary statement and reporting on the ruling, the tribunal found that a 1994 agreement had replaced that provision with a different annual-payment mechanism.

That matters. The government did not emerge from this ruling with an award ordering the GBPA to hand over $357 million.

However, it did secure meaningful legal findings. The tribunal confirmed that the GBPA’s annual-payment obligation and the contractual review mechanism remain enforceable until 2054. What additional sums might be payable through that mechanism remained to be determined; the ruling did not establish the government’s advertised recovery.

The tribunal also rejected seven of the GBPA’s eight counterclaims, rejecting its challenges to important areas of central-government authority. That was a substantial defensive success.

But the GBPA succeeded on the narrower issue of government delay in dealing with proposed environmental byelaws. Davis acknowledged that finding.

So, what did the administration gain? Confirmation of enforceable payment arrangements and important protection of governmental authority—not a $357 million payout, not ownership of the GBPA, and certainly not an automatic economic revival for Freeport.

Those are real legal gains. They are not interchangeable with jobs, functioning infrastructure or money already collected.

A tribunal ruling is not an airport terminal. A rejected counterclaim does not reopen a hotel. And “liability established” is not a deposit slip.

Consultation—or another announcement with an audience?

Now comes the promise of a “major” announcement.

The Nassau Guardian’s report, “PM expected to outline plans for GB,” quotes PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell saying Davis intends to convene a civil-society meeting involving the GBPA, its licensees and other stakeholders to discuss Freeport’s future.

But Grand Bahama Chamber of Commerce President Ralph Hepburn said the chamber had not yet been made aware of plans to meet with it.

His response deserves more attention than the promotional language:

“You’re coming to Freeport to have meetings and discussions with the stakeholders, and the chamber is not aware of it.”

An interesting approach to stakeholder engagement: announce that the stakeholders will be engaged, then allow the stakeholders to discover the engagement in the news.

To be accurate, this is not the government’s first meeting or consultation concerning Freeport. There have been earlier engagements, including a post-arbitration town hall. The criticism is therefore not that Davis has never met Grand Bahamians. It is that another promised consultation and major announcement still leave residents asking for a clear, credible programme of delivery.

Hepburn put it plainly:

“The business community in Grand Bahama is tired of announcements and pronouncements, and we just want to see things happen.”

That is not rooting against the country. That is requesting evidence.

Where is the delivery plan?

Grand Bahama’s difficulties predate this administration, and it would be inaccurate to pretend that nothing positive has happened. Major investments and reported employment improvements deserve recognition.

But inherited problems do not provide a government with an unlimited exemption from accountability. Nor does progress in some areas erase persistent questions about the airport, the Grand Lucayan and Freeport’s wider revival.

A responsible administration should prepare for the practical consequences of litigation while the litigation is underway: what happens if it wins, what happens if it loses, and what happens if—as here—the result is mixed.

The public record does not prove that the government had no internal plan. It does justify asking why residents are still awaiting a sufficiently clear public roadmap.

What will be collected from the GBPA? Through which process? On what timetable? What will it cost to pursue? And how will the legal findings translate into measurable improvements for residents?

Those are governance questions, not loyalty offences.

The prime minister need not enjoy criticism. But he should resist treating skepticism as evidence of defective priorities. Grand Bahamians have heard enough promises to know that an announcement and an accomplishment are two very different things.

The question is not whether residents will cheer the government’s claimed victory. It is what that victory actually delivers—and why they are still being asked to wait for the answer.

The people of the people of The Bahamas deserve better.

END

Apparently, after five years in office, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) has finally discovered that Grand Bahama would like to know what the government actually intends to do with Grand Bahama.

Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis is expected to travel to the island later this month to convene a “civil society meeting” involving the Grand Bahama Port Authority, its licensees, residents and other stakeholders to discuss the government’s plans for Freeport going forward.

Fred Mitchell — Minister of Foreign Affairs and, more importantly for this particular announcement, Chairman of the PLP — has described the coming announcement as “major.”

Well, after five years, it had better be.

Because if Grand Bahamians are wondering why they have been waiting so long for this grand revelation, they might reasonably ask whether the government has been developing a plan — or merely waiting to see whether its legal gamble against the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) would produce enough money to finance one.

And that brings us to the rather inconvenient little matter of arbitration and the $357 million elephant in the room

The Davis administration took the Government of The Bahamas into arbitration against the Grand Bahama Port Authority, pursuing a claim for approximately $357 million.

The government lost that particular claim.

The arbitration tribunal rejected the government’s attempt to recover the $357 million under the provision on which it had based its claim. The ruling was not, however, a complete defeat for the government: the tribunal affirmed continuing government regulatory authority in Freeport and confirmed that the GBPA has an obligation to make payments to the government under the applicable payment mechanism through 2054, with further issues still to be determined.

So let us be fair.

The Prime Minister did not walk away from arbitration empty-handed.

But neither did he walk away with the $357 million that his government had gone to arbitration seeking.

That distinction matters.

Because one has to wonder what exactly was supposed to happen next if the government had won the jackpot.

Was the intention to use the proceeds to help finance the transformation of Grand Bahama?

Was the arbitration strategy part of the broader economic plan?

If so, what happens when the financial windfall you were counting on does not arrive in the form you expected?

Apparently, you call a meeting.

Five years later.

There is another inconvenient part of this story.

When the Davis administration came to office in 2021, it cancelled the agreement between the government and the Royal Caribbean/ITM Group for the purchase and redevelopment of the Grand Lucayan.

The government defended the decision by arguing that the arrangement negotiated under the previous Free National Movement (FNM) FNM administration was not in the best interests of Bahamians and that its structure and terms were unacceptable.

Fair enough.

Governments have every right to reject agreements they believe are bad.

But there is one tiny problem with that philosophy:

If you tear up the old plan, you are supposed to have a better one.

The cancelled Royal Caribbean/ITM proposal had contemplated significant investment in the resort and Freeport Harbour. The Davis administration subsequently pursued another investor, including an agreement with Electra America, but that $100 million sale ultimately collapsed as well.

Meanwhile, Grand Bahama continued waiting.

Waiting for the hotel.

Waiting for the airport.

Waiting for investment.

Waiting for jobs.

Waiting for the economy to recover.

And now, apparently, waiting for the government to explain what it has been planning all this time.

AND ABOUT THAT AIRPORT…

For accuracy, the government did not simply cancel the airport deal inherited from the FNM.

The Minnis administration purchased the Grand Bahama International Airport from Hutchison for $1, together with certain staff-related obligations, and intended to identify a private-sector partner to redevelop it.

The Davis administration subsequently pursued its own PPP process for the airport. In 2026, the Prime Minister announced that Manchester Airports Group had been contracted to undertake the redevelopment, with Phase One described as approximately a $130 million investment.

So, the criticism should not be that the PLP “cancelled the airport deal.”

The more defensible criticism is this:

Grand Bahama spent years waiting for the airport solution to become a reality while successive plans, proposals and promises came and went.

And an island whose economy depends heavily on tourism, investment and connectivity does not exactly prosper on PowerPoint presentations.

So now we are left with five years of “coming soon” and this is what makes the coming announcement so politically fascinating.

The PLP has now been in government for approximately five years.

Five years is a long time in politics.

It is even longer for a community struggling with unemployment, declining economic activity, derelict properties, an impaired tourism product and the continuing consequences of Hurricane Dorian and the pandemic.

Yet here we are in October 2026, listening to the government announce that the Prime Minister is going to Grand Bahama to tell Grand Bahamians what the plans are for Grand Bahama.

Not necessarily the plans that were implemented.

Not necessarily the transformation that was delivered.

The plans.

Apparently, the future is finally ready for its unveiling.

And remarkably, the people who have been living in Grand Bahama during the last five years have been invited to attend.

There is nothing wrong with consultation.

Indeed, involving the GBPA, its licensees, businesses, residents and other stakeholders is precisely what should have been happening from the beginning.

Mitchell himself says the stakeholders need to have input not only into what happens after the Hawksbill Creek Agreement expires in 2054, but into whether changes should be made now.

That sounds sensible.

The question is why it took five years to get around to it.

Because Grand Bahama is not an experimental laboratory where governments can spend half a decade pulling economic levers, cancelling agreements, litigating with the Port Authority and hoping that somewhere along the way the economic equivalent of a winning lottery ticket falls out of the arbitration machine.

These are people’s lives.

These are people’s businesses.

These are people’s mortgages.

These are young Grand Bahamians deciding whether they should stay on the island or leave in search of opportunity elsewhere.

When government gambles with an economic strategy, it is not gambling with casino chips.

It is gambling with people’s futures.

So, now Prime Minister Davis comes with the great reveal and yes, Grand Bahama and the rest of The Bahamas is listening.

Tell us your plan.

Tell us what the government has actually accomplished.

Tell us what happened to the promises made five years ago.

Tell us why the Grand Lucayan strategy had to be abandoned.

Tell us what happened to the promised investment.

Tell us when the airport will actually deliver the economic transformation that has been promised for years.

Tell us what the arbitration was supposed to achieve financially — and what the government intends to do now that the $357 million claim was rejected.

And, above all, tell us what the economic model for Grand Bahama actually is.

Because “stakeholder consultation” is not an economic strategy.

“Major announcement” is not an economic strategy.

“Plans going forward” is not an economic strategy.

And five years into government, Grand Bahamians deserve considerably more than another announcement about an announcement.

If Prime Minister Davis wants to demonstrate that he is truly “Brave,” perhaps he should begin with the hardest political act of all:

admit where his government got it wrong.

Admit that some of the decisions made in 2021 and after carried consequences.

Admit that cancelling one plan does not constitute creating another.

Admit that arbitration was a gamble — and that the hoped-for $357 million prize did not materialise.

And then, finally, present Grand Bahama with something more substantial than optimism.

Present them with a credible economic plan, a timetable, measurable commitments and accountability.

Grand Bahama has waited long enough.

The people of the island do not need another political sermon about the “magic” returning.

They need jobs.

They need investment.

They need functioning infrastructure.

They need tourism.

They need an airport that works.

They need a revitalised economy.

And, most importantly, they need a government that understands the difference between governing an economy and gambling with one.

So, by all means, Mr. Prime Minister, go North.

Make your “major announcement.”

Grand Bahama and the rest of The Bahamas will be listening.

And after five years, it is perfectly entitled to ask the most brutally simple question imaginable:

“Where was this plan when you first got here?”

The Bahamas deserves better.

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

END

Apparently, the new educational technology is teaching Bahamian children how to learn without electricity.

There is something almost wonderfully ironic about a government that has spent years talking about transformation, progress and the modernization of the Bahamas’ energy infrastructure now asking students to regard unreliable electricity at their schools as a character-building exercise.

Apparently, the lights going out is no longer merely a power problem.

It is curriculum.

Last Friday, teachers at C.C. Sweeting Senior High School protested after weeks of electrical problems. Teachers said the outages were disrupting instruction and creating safety concerns, with one special-education teacher describing students as traumatized after witnessing an electrical fault.

Then came Monday.

Three students sustained minor burns during an electrical incident at the school. The Ministry of Education said the incident involved a faulty electrical wire feeding the campus. The students were assessed, the school was dismissed early as a precaution, and Bahamas Grid personnel were brought in to undertake corrective work.

That is not a metaphor.

That is not a philosophical exercise.

And it certainly is not what most parents would understand by “a learning opportunity.”

Yet, according to The Nassau Guardian, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Education, Science and Technology Chester Cooper said that while outages are an inconvenience, they can also be used to teach children resilience.

The argument, essentially, is that children should understand that life is not always easy and that previous generations managed without electricity.

There is undoubtedly value in teaching resilience.

Children should learn perseverance. They should learn how to overcome adversity. They should understand that life contains difficulties.

But there is a rather important distinction between teaching a child how to overcome adversity and allowing a preventable infrastructure problem to become the adversity you expect the child to overcome.

That distinction seems to have gotten lost somewhere between the classroom and the press microphone.

Because nobody is suggesting that children cannot survive a power outage.

The question is whether children attending a government school in 2026 should have to repeatedly endure inadequate electrical service as part of their education.

Schools require electricity.

Lights require electricity.

Fans and air-conditioning systems require electricity.

Computers require electricity.

Laboratories require electricity.

Modern educational technology requires electricity.

And, rather obviously, electrical systems are supposed to be safe.

So, when teachers have been complaining about electrical problems for weeks, when classes are being disrupted, when educators say the situation has become unbearable, and then three students suffer minor burns during an electrical incident, the natural question is not:

“How can we turn this into a lesson in resilience?”

The natural question is:

“Why has the problem not already been fixed?”

That is the question parents deserve answered.

That is the question teachers deserve answered.

And, frankly, that is the question the Ministry should be answering.

Because there is a certain danger in turning every government failure into a motivational seminar.

A pothole becomes an opportunity to learn patience.

A water interruption becomes an opportunity to appreciate running water.

A power outage becomes an opportunity to develop resilience.

A broken air conditioner becomes an opportunity to experience the historical lifestyle of our grandparents.

Eventually, one suspects the government could eliminate the entire infrastructure budget and simply rename the Ministry of Education the Ministry of Character Development Through Government Inconvenience.

But there is an even larger contradiction here.

The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) has repeatedly presented itself as the party of progress and transformation. The government has also spoken about reform and modernization of the energy sector, including an objective of substantially increasing renewable-energy reliance.

So where exactly does repeatedly disrupted electricity at a government high school fit into that vision?

What does progress look like when students cannot reliably depend on the electricity needed to conduct a modern school day?

And what does transformation mean if the response to a persistent infrastructure problem is essentially:

“Look on the bright side, children. This will build character.”

Perhaps there is another lesson here.

Maybe the lesson is that resilience should be something we teach, not something we impose.

Maybe the lesson is that government has a responsibility to provide safe and functional schools while teachers have the responsibility to educate the children inside them.

Maybe the lesson is that parents should not have to choose between sending their children into an unreliable electrical environment and keeping them home because they are concerned about safety.

And perhaps the most important lesson of all is that progress should be measured by the problems government solves—not by how creatively government explains why citizens should endure them.

To be fair, Minister Cooper did acknowledge that the outages are a “major inconvenience” and said he looks forward to the day when disruptions are minimized. The Ministry has also said it is working with Bahamas Grid, BPL and school administrators to address the problem.

Those assurances matter.

But after weeks of complaints and an electrical incident that injured students, parents and teachers are entitled to more than assurances.

They are entitled to a clear explanation of what failed, why it failed, what work is being done, who is responsible for completing it, and when the school can reasonably expect reliable and safe electricity.

That is not asking for luxury.

That is not asking children to be sheltered from the hardships of life.

That is asking for a functioning school.

There will be plenty of time to teach children about adversity.

Perhaps government should first teach them something else:

that when something is broken, responsible adults are supposed to fix it.

Because there is a rather profound difference between a child becoming resilient because life occasionally presents obstacles—and a child being told to develop resilience because the adults responsible for the infrastructure have not yet solved the problem.

One is education.

The other is an excuse waiting for a lesson plan.

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

END

Today, Fred Mitchell invokes the venerable legal maxim that one cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time — in plain English, you cannot embrace contradictory positions simply because each one happens to be politically convenient.

Well, fine, Fred.

But perhaps we should apply that same wonderfully useful principle to the Davis administration.

Because if “you can’t have it both ways” is today’s governing philosophy, then the National Investment Fund (NIF)— or, more accurately, the Government’s handling of it — would seem to deserve a seat at the front of the class.

The facts surrounding the NIF are no longer simply Opposition talking points.

Central Bank Governor John Rolle confirmed that the NIF Board of Governors had never formally convened, despite an account in the Fund’s name being maintained at the Central Bank and hundreds of millions of dollars moving through it.

The NIF Act itself assigns significant responsibilities to the Board, including responsibility concerning the Fund’s banking arrangements and its overall management.

And yet the Government says the transactions were lawful.

Finance Minister Michael Halkitis has argued that the Government was operating under parliamentary borrowing authority and the Public Finance Management Act while the NIF’s governance arrangements were still being developed.

So here is the rather inconvenient question:

If the Government insists that Pintard cannot simultaneously hold two positions on the foreign-agent issue, can the Government simultaneously say the NIF was functioning as intended while acknowledging that the statutory Board responsible for its governance had never actually convened?

That is not an accusation of fraud.

It is not an assertion that the Government has been found guilty of breaking the law.

It is a question about consistency, statutory governance and accountability.

And the numbers make the question rather difficult to sprinkle with political seasoning and serve as another bowl of word salad.

Government records showed the NIF holding approximately $265.3 million at the end of December 2025, but only about $200,000 by the end of March 2026.

The Government subsequently explained that money had been used for infrastructure projects and maintained that the transactions were authorized.

But even after the Government’s explanations, questions remained about the broader flow of funds. The Tribune reported that Halkitis accounted for approximately $310.9 million of roughly $700 million previously described as transferred to the NIF, leaving Opposition questions about the remainder. Prime Minister Davis rejected allegations of fraud but did not, in that report, address the outstanding accounting demand.

And therein lies the delicious irony.

Mitchell’s argument is essentially:

Don’t contradict yourself.

Agreed.

But that principle does not come with a PLP exemption clause.

If the Government demands evidence before conclusions are reached, the public should demand evidence from the Government.

If the Government says the law matters, then the public is entitled to ask how the statutory governance provisions were applied.

If the Government says the money was properly authorized, then show the authority.

If the Government says the transactions were transparent, then provide the complete accounting.

And if the Government says everything was perfectly above board, then an independent audit should hardly be treated as an act of political terrorism.

Indeed, senior banker Gowon Bowe publicly called for a full independent audit and reconciliation of NIF transactions after the Central Bank Governor’s disclosure about the Board.

So perhaps Fred Mitchell has accidentally stumbled upon a principle that is considerably more useful than he intended.

You cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.

You cannot demand that Michael Pintard choose one side of an argument while the Government simultaneously asks Bahamians to accept one explanation concerning parliamentary authority, another concerning the NIF Act, and yet another concerning a Fund whose statutory Board had not even formally convened.

That doesn’t mean the Government has been proven guilty of wrongdoing.

It means the Government has some explaining to do.

And explaining is not persecution.

It is called accountability.

So, Mr. Mitchell, by all means, keep the legal Latin coming.

Just remember that Latin is not a substitute for an audit.

And approbate and reprobate is a principle that works rather poorly when it is applied to the Opposition but mysteriously disappears when the Government is asked to explain its own conduct.

The salad bowl, it appears, has more than one chef.

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

END