I reserve all rights under the constitution of the Commonwealth of the Bahamas to comment on any subject as I see it..I do have a voice. These are my opinions.
God is not pleased but he is defiantly watching this circus with a bag of popcorn.
The Progressive Liberal Party — or should I say, the New Day, Same Old Nonsense PLP — has decided that the best way to distinguish themselves from the Free National Movement is to become… the Free National Movement. You know, the party they so lovingly dubbed the “Foreign National Movement”? Yeah, well, plot twist: they’ve now cast themselves in the reboot.
“Nurses protest at ‘foreign bias’” – The Tribune Yes, ladies and gentlemen, while Bahamian nurses contracts are apparently still collecting dust on Ministry shelves marked “Pending Since 2023,” the government has decided to throw a welcome party for healthcare workers from Ghana — complete with housing, uniforms, and salary advances! Because nothing says “support local” quite like flying in the competition and giving them a starter pack.
Cue Bahamas Nurses Union President Muriel Lightbourne, who is understandably livid, standing outside the orientation like a parent locked out of their kid’s school recital. “God is not pleased with that,” she says — and you know it’s serious when God gets dragged into it. Honestly, if the Almighty had a comment card, it would probably read: “Stop embarrassing Me.”
Now, before you think this is just some angry overreaction, let’s review:
Bahamian nurses have been waiting since 2023 for appointments.
Some have been working for stipends — which, in case you didn’t know, is a fancy word for “barely enough to afford the basic essentials.”
And now, they get to watch as their foreign counterparts are welcomed like medical super stars at a Ministry-sponsored red carpet.
And what does our Minister of Health and Wellness, the ever-serene Dr. Michael Darville, have to say for himself?
“We have massive recruitment of our healthcare professionals from developed countries… so I’m around the world trying to find healthcare professionals who are willing to come to The Bahamas.”
Translation: “We’re losing our nurses to places that treat them better, so instead of fixing the problem here, we’re outsourcing.”
Darville then drops the classic bureaucratic dodge: blame it on the vetting process. Apparently, the Royal Bahamas Police Force and the Public Service Commission are moving slower than a Ministry meeting scheduled at lunchtime.
Now, no one is saying we don’t need help — global shortage, brain drain, ect, ect, etc… But if the solution is to “wine and dine” foreigners while local nurses are out here boiling ramen noodles and begging for a uniform, then definitely, we have hypocrisy.
Tell me this — do Bahamian nurses not possess the same training? Do they not bleed, bandage, and burn out like everyone else in healthcare? Are they not worthy of a mattress and a paycheck?
This isn’t just bad optics — this is a full-blown political Magic Eye painting. You squint, tilt your head, and no matter how long you stare… the only thing that comes into focus is betrayal.
You would expect this from the FNM, but the PLP? The people’s party? Apparently, the people in question now come with a visa stamp and a job offer.
The Progressive Liberal Party fails for one reason, it is their nature.
Oh, how convenient—when cornered with an inconvenient truth, the backpedaling begins.
Let’s be painfully clear here:
Yes, the voice note is real. Yes, the words came out of Adrian White’s mouth: “Sensible people vote FNM.”
Now, let’s walk through this slowly, for those struggling with basic comprehension or hoping to gaslight the public into self-doubt.
When you say, “Sensible people vote FNM,” you are making a direct logical implication: those who do not vote FNM are, by contrast, not sensible. And what’s the opposite of “sensible”? Oh right—foolish, irrational, and maybe even… stupid?
So no, this isn’t some tortured leap of logic, and it certainly isn’t “over-reaching in hopes of spreading political propaganda.” It’s called basic inference. Something high school students are taught before they even sit their BGCSEs.
But let’s go deeper, since we’re here. Imagine if a PLP Member of Parliament and/or Chairman had suggested, “Only right-thinking people support the PLP.” Would the same defenders on this thread be twisting themselves into knots to say that’s not a dig at FNM voters? Please. Spare us the sanctimony.
This is a classic case of “I didn’t say the exact bad word, so I must be innocent.” No, sir. We’re not buying it. If you walk like you’re insulting people, talk like you’re insulting people, and your tone drips with condescension—then yes, you’re insulting people.
So, to those trying to dress this up as a harmless “opinion” or an “innocent observation,” stop insulting the public’s intelligence. Gas lighting doesn’t work when the receipts are public. And Mr. White? If you meant something else, you might want to find better words next time—or maybe just… say what you mean without the arrogance.
We, in The Bahamas, have found ourselves in a most curious position: miraculously untouched by the shipping fees and trade tariffs unleashed President Donald J. Trump. While much of the globe clutched its pearls over aluminum, steel, and everything in between, we strolled by, duty-free and drama-free.
Let us not mistake this for luck. In Trumpian politics, there is no such thing as a free exemption. It begs the question: who kissed the ring – or some other less regal region – to earn us this economic mercy?
Trump’s economic policies have been more like economic tantrums; like a bull in a China shop – often literally. His America First doctrine translated into America Gets Paid and the Rest Get Played. Between 2018 and 2020, tariffs rained down on traditional allies and adversaries alike. Europe? Taxed. China? Slammed. Mexico and Canada? Threatened until they blinked.
He invoked Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, claiming national security to justify tariffs on steel and aluminum. Then came the grand idea of slapping 10% across the board on all imports and a jaw-dropping 60% on Chinese goods during his 2024 campaign trail.
Here in The Bahamas, we have a simple strategy: don’t make much, don’t get taxed. We export modestly – seafood, salt, rum – and import nearly everything. Our trade relationship with the U.S. leans heavily one way, which might explain why we didn’t trigger the ire of the tariff gods.
Besides, we are the United States’ favorite tropical partner: sun, sand, and strategic cooperation. We let the U.S. use our waters for drug interdiction and migration patrols, and we’ve done a bang-up job pretending to enjoy financial regulation crackdowns from FATF and OECD under U.S. encouragement. They like us! They really like us!
But let’s not get too flattered. Trump does not do charity. So again, we ask: what’s in it for him?
Did our government quietly lobby their way into exemption? Are there cables, memos, or golf games we are unaware of? Did someone charm a trade official, or worse, appeal to Trump’s ego with promises of beachfront naming rights or kiss his ***?
We hope no official had to practice the ancient art of Strategic Bootlicking, but if they did, let us build them a statue at Rawson Square – bronze, bent over slightly.
If we were to look at it honestly, what does POTUS Trump get? ,a stable offshore banking partner.?
A tourism haven for his voter base (wealthy Americans with questionable sun protection habits).
A country that doesn’t complain too loudly?
Could our exemption simply be a gift to Florida’s expat backyard? Was it a convenient non-fight in an otherwise chaotic global tantrum?
So, yes, we should be grateful. But cautiously so. We are economically exposed. If tariffs ever do come, we’d be the ones with the $12 peanut butter and $80 plywood sheets.
Let this be a wake-up call: for us to diversify our trade partnerships; deepen ties within CARICOM. and build capacity at home.
Because next time, we might not be so “lucky”.
Finally, so yes, Mr. Trump, thank you for sparing us. But if it was not for diplomacy or shared values, then we can’t help but ask:
There’s an old naval saying: “Loose lips sink ships.” And today, those words may be more than a caution—they may be a mirror reflecting the uneasy waters Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis finds himself navigating.
This week, in a striking pivot, Prime Minister Davis responded to questions surrounding the high-profile indictment of Bahamian law enforcement officers in a U.S.-led cocaine trafficking probe. His claim? That the officers may have been entrapped.
“It appears officers were entrapped.” — The Nassau Guardian, April 14, 2025
Prime Minister Davis told reporters that the operation “on the face of it appears to be an entrapment of officers,” a tone that stands in stark contrast to his fiery rhetoric from just five months ago. Then, Davis promised swift justice and sweeping reform in response to what he called a betrayal of public trust.
Let’s go back.
In November 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice unsealed a federal indictment implicating 13 individuals—11 Bahamians and 2 Colombians—in a transnational drug trafficking conspiracy. Among those indicted were:
Chief Superintendent Elvis Curtis, former head of the Airport Division;
Sergeant Prince Albert Symonette, Royal Bahamas Police Force (RBPF), now discharged;
Chief Petty Officer Darrin Roker, Royal Bahamas Defence Force (RBDF), also discharged.
According to the indictment, Curtis allegedly told an undercover trafficker that a high-ranking Bahamian politician could authorize law enforcement support for cocaine shipments—for the price of $2 million. No politician was named.
Following this explosive claim, the Davis administration sent a diplomatic note to U.S. officials requesting further information, including the identity of the unnamed politician. As of yesterday, the Prime Minister confirmed the U.S. has not responded.
“Not a word,” Davis told the press.
And now, the Prime Minister raises the possibility of entrapment—a serious legal defense in which government agents induce someone to commit a crime they would not have committed otherwise.
This raises several crucial questions:
Were Bahamian officers induced or tricked into participating in drug trafficking?
If so, why did they allegedly ask for $2 million in exchange for political and police protection?
Who is the unnamed Bahamian politician? What did they know—and when?
Why has the Attorney General remained silent on this matter?
And perhaps most concerning—why has the Prime Minister changed his tone so dramatically?
In November, Davis was resolute:
“We cannot wait—and we will not wait—for the outcomes of court proceedings in the United States… We will have change, we will have reform, and we will have action.”
He promised that “the tree will be shaken until every bad apple falls.” That tree seems quieter now.
Which leads us to a chilling possibility: Does the Prime Minister know more than he’s letting on? Or is he signaling that?
Either way, the narrative is shifting. The Bahamian public, like their Prime Minister, have been left without answers—diplomatic note unanswered, allegations unclarified, accountability uncertain.
In this vacuum, trust erodes. If the nation’s top law enforcement officers are accused of enabling narcotics trafficking, and political protection is offered like currency, the public deserves more than ambiguity. They deserve transparency.
Prime Minister Davis, frustrated by diplomatic silence, now finds himself in the same position the Bahamian public has long endured—waiting for answers from his administration.
And that brings us to the Progressive Liberal Party’s ongoing problem. It’s not just about scandal. It’s about silence. A silence that, like loose lips, can sink institutions.
In February of this year there was a situation in Exuma wherein a company known as Bahamas Morring Company had secured a 21-year seabed lease to install forty-nine (49) separate anchorage/moorage sites spread throughout the Exuma Cays.
The lease was approved by the Minister responsible for Crown Land but after documents were made public by the media and after some public pushback Prime Minister Davis came to the rescue and ordered a “cease and desist” order, the only puzzlement is that the very same minister that actually signed off on the deal was the same minister that had approved it initially but we will not get into these details.
Cease order on Exuma moorings – The Tribune, February 24, 2025
Excerpt from this article; “An Exuma-wide boat mooring/anchorage deal branded as “insane” by Bahamian marina chiefs has been halted by local government authorities due to the purported absence of key approvals.
The move came after the lease, seemingly signed by the Prime Minister in his capacity as minister responsible for Crown Land on January 25, 2025, sparked consternation, bewilderment and anger among boaters/yachters, impacted Family Island communities and others who all said they were blindsided by revelations of this deal.
Besides raising questions over the Davis administration’s apparent lack of transparency and failure to consult Out Island communities, other observers also challenged why a deal of this nature was not put out to competitive bidding via a request for proposal (RFP). And they queried why the Government had not adopted a different public-private partnership (PPP) model by retaining the seabed and hiring a private operator.”
Today, Prime Minister Davis has had to come to our rescue yet again, as it would appear that his office has paused a contract for $183m dollars for road paving, the only problem being that the contract did not seem to go through the proper procedures, much like the Exuma moorings deal and both times it would appear that even after passing through the Office of The Prime Minister (OPM), Prime Minister Davis had to come to our rescue again.
“Road contract was an error” – The Nassau Guardian
Except from this article, “A controversial $183 million no-bid contract awarded to an affiliate of Bahamas Striping Group of Companies has been “paused” and was included on a recently published public procurement list due to an “administrative error”, the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) said yesterday.
OPM said Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis halted the contract award before the procurement list was released, adding that the matter is under review.
On March 31, the Davis administration published a public procurement list of government contracts awarded in December 2024 and January 2025 that revealed that Abaco Caribbean” Holdings Limited (ACH) received a $183 million contract on December 18, 2024, for West Grand Bahama roadworks through a direct award.
This revelation elicited criticism from some quarters. Free National Movement (FNM) Chairman Dr. Duane Sands said last week the contract should be cancelled and the process opened up to competitive bidding.
Matt Aubry, executive director of the Organization for Responsible Governance (ORG), said competitive bidding should be the standard with government contracts.
The Davis administration was quiet on the controversy until OPM’s statement yesterday.
“The Office of the Prime Minister has completed a review of the decision-making process, and the timelines related to the publication of a list of contracts concluded with various vendors in accordance with the Public Procurement Act,” OPM said.
The statement did not mention the specifics of the contract nor the name of the company it was initially awarded to—referring only to “public discussion” over “a particular allocation” on the published list.
“An administrative error resulted in the inclusion of a contract and a specific allocation that had, in fact, been paused by the prime minister prior to the publication of the list.”
While “the prime minister is satisfied that no improper intent or malfeasance occurred”, the questions still remain; why has this happened twice already and what was the “administrative error that caused this?
The prime minister wishes to have the country believe that he had caught this and had paused this before it was published but after the Exuma incident it would appear that the “administrative error” here is that someone picked up on it has actually queried it; this is my opinion.
So, it would appear the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government is the very definition of the word insanity; wherein they keep attempting to do the same maleficence over and over and expecting a different result.
Maybe they are hoping that the people are too blinded by their sheer incompetence to even notice.
The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.
First, it was the Exuma Moorings Scandal—49 mooring sites quietly approved for a 21-year lease by the Davis administration, signed by the Prime Minister himself. Only after public outrage did he swoop in with a “cease and desist,” as if he hadn’t just approved it weeks earlier.
Now? A $183 million no-bid road paving contract handed to a company linked to Bahamas Striping—again, quietly. Again, no competitive bidding. Again, outrage. And again, the PM steps in to “pause” the deal, claiming—wait for it—an administrative error.
Same playbook, different day.This isn’t transparency. This is a government hoping no one notices until it’s too late—then pretending to be the hero when caught.
Two scandals. Same minister. Same excuses. Same insult to public trust.
The PLP doesn’t stumble into these things—they are these things.
The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.
Either there’s something inherently defective about Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the “New Day” Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), or he thinks the rest of us—rational, thinking Bahamians—were dropped on our heads as infants.
Today, Mitchell, in his usual pompous grandeur, attempts to preempt the opposition’s vote with a dazzling display of political hot air, baseless speculation, and good old-fashioned gibberish. The matter at hand? A straightforward debate on extending the retirement age of Defense Force officers. Simple, right? Well, not if you’re Fred Mitchell.
His “brilliant” argument hinges on the opposition’s stance against the PLP’s unexplained and arbitrary decision to rehire 213 retired police officers—without, might I add, so much as a valid explanation. According to Mitchell, the opposition’s reasonable demand for transparency is somehow an attack on the Royal Bahamas Police Force. Because in the fantasy land Mitchell inhabits, asking logical questions means waging war on institutions.
But wait, there’s more! Mitchell now expects right-thinking Bahamians to believe that Michael Pintard shedding light on the eviction of police officers in Grand Bahama is some sort of cheap political stunt to curry favor with the force. A ridiculous take, even by his standards.
And then, in a truly jaw-dropping display of wisdom, Mitchell suggests that if there was an issue, the Leader of the Opposition should have simply whispered his concerns in private and politely asked the government for help. Right. Because that approach has worked so well for University of The Bahamas students, who are still waiting for a lifeline from this “New Day” government.
Mitchell’s arguments aren’t just weak—they’re a tragic spectacle. He defends this trainwreck of an administration with the enthusiasm of a man who knows he has no real case but insists on arguing anyway. And in his valiant effort to defend the indefensible, he only manages to make less and less sense with every breath.
If these voice notes truly reflect the stance of the PLP as a party and a government, then we can only hope the Lord continues to be our strength—because with leadership like this, divine intervention is our only hope.
The biblical parable from Matthew 7:24-27 teaches us that a house built on sand will inevitably succumb to the elements, a clear lesson in the futility of poor foundational choices. This wisdom seems utterly lost on the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), whose electoral strategy and governance seem as flimsy as a shack teetering on a beachfront.
“PM: FNM is unchanged” – The Nassau Guardian
According to a recent piece in The Nassau Guardian, Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis seems to believe that regurgitating old criticisms of the Free National Movement (FNM) under the Minnis administration constitutes a political strategy. In his melodramatic monologue wrapping up the mid-year budget debate, Davis painted his administration as the saviours of an economy “in crisis,” thanks to the alleged missteps of the FNM.
Davis theatrically lamented the “reckless policies” and “lack of foresight” of the previous government, blaming them for every woe from economic instability to the common cold. Yet, he conveniently glossed over the fact that under the FNM, prior to Dorian and the pandemic, Moody’s had upgraded The Bahamas’ fiscal outlook from negative to stable in 2019—a sign of economic stabilization blatantly ignored by Davis.
Now, let’s dissect the continued narrative of Davis and his finance minister, both beating the same tired drum with a zeal that could only be matched by their most ardent, and perhaps delusional, supporters. They propagate the myth that they turned around an economy in peril, yet shy away from detailing any substantive economic policies that contributed to this supposed revival.
It’s almost comical, if not so tragically misleading, that the PLP accuses the FNM of having “no vision, no strategy, no plan,” when in reality, this seems like a desperate attempt to project their own shortcomings onto their predecessors. This government’s track record so far is as robust as a house of cards in a hurricane—destined to collapse under the weight of its own hollow promises.
In conclusion, the finance minister’s remarks during the Mid-year Budget debate were nothing short of a farce. To regard them as anything more than political theater would be a disservice to the intelligence of the Bahamian people. The New Day PLP, it seems, has not ushered in any new dawn but is merely a continuation of the old dusk. It’s time The Bahamas received the governance it truly deserves, not just more of the same old rhetoric wrapped in new packaging.
On February 24, 2025, the Office of the Prime Minister (OPM) publicly defended its decision to grant a 21-year lease to Bahamas Moorings Ltd. for operating mooring services in Exuma. The announcement appeared to come as a reaction to growing concerns over the company’s activities in the area. At the time, the OPM maintained that the lease was in line with environmental preservation efforts, suggesting that moorings are beneficial to protecting marine life and reducing damage to the ecosystem.
‘Deal’ is Dead
On February 25 2025, a mere 24 hours later, the government announced that the agreement with Bahamas Moorings Ltd. was “dead.” This swift turnaround came in the wake of public outrage and revelations that Bahamas Moorings Ltd. had begun installing moorings without obtaining the necessary environmental and regulatory approvals. According to the OPM, the lease required the company to meet specific conditions before proceeding, conditions which had clearly not been met.
The Secret Agreement Unravels
The controversy deepened when it was revealed that an employee from the Office of the Prime Minister had acted as a witness to the lease agreement. The OPM launched an internal review but provided no clear answers as to how such a significant lapse in oversight occurred. The question on many minds was: Who exactly gave Bahamas Moorings Ltd. the green light to install moorings in Exuma’s waters?
Chester Cooper’s ‘Pleased’ Response
Exuma and Ragged Island MP, Chester Cooper, responded to the deal’s collapse with a curious mix of relief and foresight. “I’m pleased with the outcome,” Cooper said, noting that the outrage among Exumians was not surprising to him. He emphasized the importance of “doing things the correct way” — with full environmental approvals, safety measures, and local consultation. His comments, however, raised more questions than answers. As Deputy Prime Minister and a representative of Exuma, why did he not appear to have been involved in or aware of the approval process? Did no one in the government think to consult him before proceeding with such a consequential deal?
A Ministerial Disconnect
Prime Minister Philip Davis, as the minister responsible for lands, had approved the lease for Bahamas Moorings Ltd. The company had ambitious plans to install 250 moorings over 4,000 acres at 49 locations in Exuma. However, the contradiction between the Prime Minister’s approval and Cooper’s assertion that “there is a correct way to do things” is glaring. Was this a case of bureaucratic miscommunication, or was there a deliberate attempt to bypass proper procedures?
A Convenient ‘Review’
In the aftermath of the scandal, the OPM announced a review of existing mooring fields in The Bahamas. The review aims to assess which mooring fields have proper leases, environmental clearances, port approvals, and Cabinet-level endorsements if necessary. While this might appear to be a progressive step, the timing of this review is highly suspicious. It suggests a reactive approach designed to cover up the original missteps rather than a genuine commitment to transparency.
The Bigger Outstanding Questions
Who signed off on the deal without ensuring the proper approvals were in place?
Why did the government not announce the deal publicly before the installations began?
Was the Deputy Prime Minister truly in the dark about the agreement?
How could an OPM employee act as a witness to the agreement without senior officials’ knowledge?
The Bottom Line: A Close Call for Exuma
Ultimately, it was the vigilance of the Exuma community that halted what could have been a severe overreach by the government. The promise to now conduct consultations and regulatory checks is not an achievement — it is the bare minimum that should have been done from the start. The entire episode reeks of a government caught with its hand in the cookie jar, now scrambling to reset the narrative.
If the right-thinking citizens of Exuma had not spoken up, would we ever have known about this clandestine agreement? Who will be held accountable for attempting to pull a fast one on the Bahamian people? These are the questions that demand clear, honest answers from those in power.
This morning Fred Mitchell Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government, took to social media to “set the record straight” and to embarrass the opposition and all those that oppose the New Day PLP government.
It would seem that with each and every voice-note that Chairman Mitchell puts out, he only brings embarrassment to himself and to the New Day PLP party and government.
Today Fred Mitchell says;
“Michael Pintard thinks he’s got the wind at his back, even though his sails are flapping all over the place and his ship appears rudderless. From his seat in the House of Assembly on Wednesday past, he claimed that the Prime Minister’s budget statement reflected desperation.
I would use another D and not [to] describe the Prime Minister, but [to] describe Mr. Pintard, who is delusional politically. Living in a cloud cuckoo land, he thinks his life is a fairy tale.
The mid-year budget statement had plenty of good news for everyone, mainly, I think, on the tax front, that contrary to the plans of the FNM and contrary to the advice of the IMF, the taxes are going down, down, down on food.”
What Mr. Mitchell fails to tell the public it that they have already taxed the “hell” out of the average Bahamian and as they are set to some reduce taxes still not having achieved their economic goals, they ask for the Bahamian public to now be grateful for the government’s shortcomings;
“The Bahamian government recorded a $394 million deficit as of December 31, 2024—far exceeding the projected $69.8 million deficit for the fiscal year 2024/2025. This shortfall, despite record revenue collections of $1.4 billion, suggests that government spending is outpacing revenue intake, a trend that could have mixed implications for the average working Bahamian.”
“For the average working Bahamian, the $394 million deficit signals potential economic risks, despite short-term improvements in wages and public spending. If the government fails to rein in spending or find sustainable revenue sources, the burden may eventually fall on taxpayers in the form of higher taxes, reduced public services, and increased borrowing costs. While investments in healthcare, infrastructure, and education are beneficial, long-term fiscal stability remains a major concern that could impact job security and the overall cost of living.”
But Mitchell does not stop there, I get the feeling that he does not know when to stop, as he does not seem to listen to himself or maybe he like listening to himself, interesting;
“The FNM is just a talk shop at the moment, and if there is any D or desperation, I would suggest that the leader of the opposition looks in the mirror.
The FNM has been trying to find scandals, but every time they think they have the PLP to the mat, just before you can say Jack Sprat, there is a rational and sensible answer awaiting.
After batting away their stupidity on rehires in the public service, Michael Pintard comes up with the great idea that when he becomes Prime Minister, God forbid, he’s going to fire the 213 policemen on the payroll. This is stop, review, and cancel all over again. I warn you people, do not vote for this man, he’s delusional.
Then they thought they had something about when they discovered this thing about the moorings in the Exuma Land and Sea Park. The government moved to stop and regulate these American boaters coming into the Land and Sea Park and dumping doo-doo in the water and doing so for free. It was a joint venture. The businessman has now decided he’s had enough of this, he’s not putting his family through this FNM grinder. So the end result now is the FNM has caused the country to lose and doo-doo to be dumped freely in the waters of the Exuma Park. “
The issue with the re-hires still is not sitting well with right thinking Bahamians, especially the younger ones but it would appear that “someone” has convinced Mr. Mitchell that he is right. I am thinking that these persons are over 30 years old.
Then there is this section of Mitchell’s voice note that is very confusing, as Mitchell criticized the FNM’s stance on the Exuma Land and Sea Park moorings issue, accusing them of causing the country to lose revenue and allowing unregulated waste disposal by foreign boaters. He described the government’s initiative as a joint venture aimed at regulating moorings and preventing environmental degradation. It would appear that Mr. Mitchell is in his very own “cloud cuckoo land”.
Actually the controversy centers around a 21-year seabed lease granted to Bahamas Moorings Company for 49 anchorage sites throughout the Exuma Cays. The deal faced backlash due to a lack of transparency, absence of competitive bidding, and potential privatization concerns. Local authorities halted the project, citing missing key approvals. The primary environmental concern was the potential damage to coral reefs and seabed from unregulated anchoring, rather than waste disposal issues.
“An Exuma-wide boat mooring/anchorage deal branded as “insane” by Bahamian marina chiefs has been halted by local government authorities due to the purported absence of key approvals.
Bahamas Moorings Company, which according to documents obtained by Tribune Business has secured a 21-year seabed lease for 49 separate anchorage/moorage sites spread throughout the Exuma Cays, was on Friday ordered to “cease and desist” what the island’s administrator described as an “unauthorized mooring installation”.
The move came after the lease, seemingly signed by the Prime Minister in his capacity as minister responsible for Crown Land on January 25, 2025, sparked consternation, bewilderment and anger among boaters/yachters, impacted Family Island communities and others who all said they were blindsided by revelations of this deal.
Besides raising questions over the Davis administration’s apparent lack of transparency and failure to consult Out Island communities, other observers also challenged why a deal of this nature was not put out to competitive bidding via a request for proposal (RFP). And they queried why the Government had not adopted a different public-private partnership (PPP) model by retaining the seabed and hiring a private operator.
Instead, several sources suggested the lease deal represents a privatization of all safe, feasible anchorage and mooring sites throughout the Exuma cays outside of those in the Exuma Lands and Sea Park. In effect, they said the Government has given a private company a monopoly over these sites where it will be “mandatory” for boats and yachts to pay the fees levied by Bahamas Moorings Company.”
Now, the Member of Parliament that represents this the Exumas has finally broken his silence on the matter to say; that he I pleased with the government’s decision to end the agreement with Bahamas Mooring Ltd. and that the deal (which had been signed off by the prime minister), was done without proper environmental and other approvals” and “Whilst we encourage entrepreneurship, there is a correct way to do things.”
Mr. Mitchell, the budget as presented is worrisome for the reasons as presented above and only time can tell if it is beneficial to the average Bahamian, at this time it seems to have come just in time to “buy” an election and the manner in which you wish to portray this mooring controversy, leaves very much to be desired by a “seasoned politician” like yourself as it is not an issue as to why you would like us to believe; as there much deeper underlying explained reason as to why this is an issue today.
If you call it “do-do” then we can use that term but not for the reason as to why you would suggest.
The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.
My Morning Paper 