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.

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 “unauthorised 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.”

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.

“Contrary to the opposition’s claims of improper motive, the prime minister is satisfied that no improper intent or malfeasance occurred,” OPM continued.

“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.

END

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.

END

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 Bahamas deserves better.

END

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.

END

 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

1. Who signed off on the deal without ensuring the proper approvals were in place?
2. Why did the government not announce the deal publicly before the installations began?
3. Was the Deputy Prime Minister truly in the dark about the agreement?
4. 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.

END

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.

END

Sometimes I really feel that it would be in the best interest of Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) to just remain quiet but a part of his duty is to defend his party, one that he seems to take very seriously; but what happens when his party policies do not line up with the best interest of the country?

As an elected official I feel that accountability to the country should come first but according to Mitchell sometimes answering questions isn’t worth the trouble.

“Mitchell says answering questions ‘isn’t worth the trouble’ sometime’ “– The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article;

“Amid backlash over a Cabinet minister’s revelation that the government rehired nearly 500 retirees, Minister of Foreign Affairs Fred Mitchell said sometimes it “isn’t worth the trouble” to answer questions in this country.

He made the comment in a voice note on Monday as he again lamented the reaction from the Free National Movement (FNM) and some in the labor movement to the rehires.

“In many respects you can see why sometimes answering questions in this country, it isn’t worth the trouble really,” Mitchell said.

 “I get the impression that people don’t want to know the truth. All they want to do is find something to row about,” he said, questioning why critics want to attack police officers or teachers being rehired to fill needed gaps.”

First of all let me dispel two pieces of misinformation and spread some truth that Chairman Mitchell wishes to “hide” here; first, it is not only the FNM that has questioned this latest move by the New Day government and two, the criticism does not “attack police officers or teachers” as is being stated by Chairman Mitchell.

 We all know that Fred Mitchell and by extension, the New Day PLP party/government whom he represents, are not fans of  Freedom of Information, as they opposed the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA). What they fail to realize is that it is their responsibility as a government to answer plausible and reasonable questions put to them by the opposition and the others i.e. the public – it is something that we call transparency and accountability.

It now appears that the PLP party/government does not think too highly of these concepts, it would appear that they are foreign to them.  What I find curious is that if Chairman Mitchell truly got the impression that some “that people don’t want to know the truth”, he would not take to putting out his pointless voice notes three times a week in order to “set the record straight” and in order to disseminate “the truth” to “right thinking PLP’s”. It appears that he does feel that people want to know the truth or “the PLP’s truth” and this is where I feel were a conflict comes in.

It seems that the Chairman of the New Day PLP party/government is more upset that “the truth” that he seeks to disseminate is not being readily digested as he would like it to be by others out of the sphere of “right thinking PLP’s”.  It would appear that Mitchell and the New Day PLP government party/government are seeing themselves as governing a nation that does not think and therefore does not question any of their actions; it would appear that the New Day PLP party/government have come to believe that they are catering to a mindless citizenry, it appears that Mitchell and his New Day party/government are wrong – except for the few that regurgitate anything and everything that the PLP puts out without even attempting to rationalize it for themselves without fear of making themselves look at stupid as the person whom the follow blindly.

It is a very sad situation that an elected official would some to the rationalization that it’s better not to answer the public that hired them because they feel that that that population is intelligent enough to question him and the party/government that he represents.  It is sad that followers of his party believe that what he says actually makes sense, as they do not seem to see that it casts them in a very poor light.

The Bahamas deserves better.

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

END

“Exuma moorings project dead” – The Nassau Guardian

In a plot twist no one saw coming, the government pulled the plug on its secretive 21-year lease with Bahamas Moorings Ltd. mere hours after defending it. Public outrage over the clandestine deal—lacking environmental approvals, transparency, or basic common sense—seemed to have forced their hand.

Bahamas Moorings Ltd., in a graceful exit statement, thanked the government for the opportunity and reassured us all that they care deeply about marine conservation. Never mind that the project was scrapped before it even got past the shadows.

Now when you really look at it, this did not have to be this controversial. If there was not something really amidst, the real kicker is that the government’s own justification was that unregulated anchoring is damaging marine ecosystems would have seemed quite legitimate. So if the mooring system was the eco-friendly solution, why all of the “back-room dealings”?

Why the lack of public consultation?

Why the rushed defense before the sudden U-turn?

Ah yes, because secrecy is the PLP’s default setting. But they sure do call me “disrespectful” for pointing out that the Prime Minister runs his administration like an undercover spy mission, therefore having me labelled him “Secret Squirrel”

PLP Fails For One Reason, It Is Their Nature.

END.

In a recent and highly contentious move, Fred Mitchell, the Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) and Minister of Foreign Affairs, has launched a vehement defence of the Davis administration’s decision to rehire nearly 500 public service retirees. This action has ignited widespread criticism across the nation, transcending political affiliations, and raising serious questions about the government’s commitment to PROGRESSIVE policies and youth empowerment.

Mitchell dismisses the backlash as mere “propaganda,” particularly targeting the Free National Movement (FNM) for allegedly misleading the public. He contends that the government’s policy is a necessary response to the country’s shifting demographics, citing an aging population and a declining birth rate as justifications for rehiring retirees. According to Mitchell, The Bahamas faces a shortage of young labour, necessitating the retention of experienced older workers to maintain public services.

However, a critical examination of the demographic data reveals inconsistencies in Mitchell’s rationale. As of 2024, The Bahamas has a population of approximately 401,283, with a median age of 35 years. The total fertility rate stands at 1.4 live births per woman, which is below the replacement level of 2.1. While these figures indicate an aging population, they do not inherently justify the large-scale rehiring of retirees, especially when considering the potential stifling of opportunities for younger professionals.

Moreover, Mitchell’s attempt to link the current demographic challenges to historical events, such as the crack cocaine epidemic and the HIV/AIDS crisis of the 1980s and 1990s, appears tenuous and lacks empirical support. These events, while tragic, do not directly correlate with the present policy of reinstating retirees into the public sector.

The government’s narrative also suffers from internal contradictions. Labour Minister Pia Glover-Rolle has previously stated that the rehiring initiative is part of a “succession planning” strategy, aiming to have experienced workers mentor the younger generation. This explanation conflicts with Mitchell’s emphasis on a labour shortage, suggesting a lack of cohesive policy direction within the administration.

Critics argue that if the Davis administration were genuinely committed to progressive ideals and empowering the youth, it would prioritize creating opportunities for younger Bahamians rather than recycling retirees into the workforce. The defence of senior positions by long-standing party members, including Mitchell himself, further undermines the government’s credibility on this front.

In conclusion, the Progressive Liberal Party’s decision to rehire a significant number of public service retirees, coupled with Mitchell’s unconvincing defence, raises serious concerns about the administration’s commitment to progressive change and youth advancement. The reliance on questionable demographic arguments and inconsistent policy narratives suggests a government more focused on preserving the status quo than fostering genuine progress for the nation’s future.

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

END

It would appear that the since the recent debacle in Grand Bahama where business owners said that they felt disenfranchised after being excluded from Carnival’s Cruise Port opportunities, the New Day Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government needed a distraction and what better than that money that the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) owe the government?

Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the New Day PLP government seems to be the “point” on this assignment and not any of the elected PLP members of parliament in Grand Bahama, not even the Minister of Grand Bahama; the Hon. Ginger Moxey, odd but then this is the PLP that we are talking about.

So Fred Mitchell went on the attack!

“Mitchell: New GBPA investor needed” – The Nassau Guardian

Excerpt from this article; “Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Chairman Fred Mitchell said yesterday Freeport is being hampered by a lack of capital and innovation from the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) shareholders.

“Let’s put this clearly – Freeport suffers because the GBPA’s shareholders today do not have the capital, it appears, or the ideas to fix the city and promote development there,” said Mitchell in a repeat of statements he made last year.

“That’s it. A new investor needs to be found that has the money and the ideas. They cannot even fix, the present shareholders, the bridge to Taino Beach, for Lord’s sake.

“What was most offensive and impertinent, though, was the suggestion that there is some sort of deal with the government behind the scenes to keep the current shareholders in power.”

While speaking at the Grand Bahama Business Outlook last week, GBPA Executive Director Rupert Hayward said excessive red tape, guardrails on immigration and the watering down of the regulatory regime have significantly undermined the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.

The 99-year agreement, which was signed between American investor Wallace Groves and The Bahamas’ colonial government, designated the Hawksbill Creek area as a free-trade zone, offering investors attractive tax incentives and duty exemptions.

The deal has been altered over the years and expires in 2054.

The Davis administration has had rocky relations with the GBPA.

Since winning the September 2021 general election, Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis has on many occasions expressed frustration with GBPA and the state of Freeport.

Last year, the government sent a demand letter to GBPA asking that it pay $357 million the Davis administration says it is owed under Section 1(5) of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, which specifies that costs borne by the government for certain activities and services provided are to be reimbursed by the Port for amounts in excess of customs duties and emergency taxes collected.

The Port Authority, however, rejected the claim that it owes that sum and said it “will robustly defend against it”.

An arbitration process is currently underway.”

Now I have been warned about talking about this case because it is in arbitration, but it would seem that it is fine for the Chairman of the PLP to go against this “warning” but then we know that the PLP are infamous for “do as we say and not as we do”.

I find it amazing that as Mitchell attempts to take control of Freeport, he would use that the “reasoning” that “Freeport suffers because the GBPA’s shareholders today do not have the capital, it appears, or the ideas to fix the city and promote development there”.

I would just like to ask the question, then why is the rest of The Bahamas suffering, especially when it comes to infrastructural improvement and why?

Another funny, as told by Chairman Mitchell; “I like the prime minister enormously. He’s very accommodating when we sit down and talk about things behind closed doors.”

Mitchell said, however, that Hayward’s suggestion that there is a “behind-the-scenes agreement” between them was “impertinent.”

“What was most offensive and impertinent, though, was the suggestion that there is some sort of deal with the government behind the scenes to keep the current shareholders in power,” Mitchell said.

“Mr. Hayward says that he is friends with the prime minister’s wife and likes the prime minister. What in God’s name does ‘like’ have to do with it?”

Is this what Chairman Mitchell seems to draw this very own private conclusions of some suggested “secret deal” that he finds “impertinent” “offensive” from?; this here suggests one thing to me – mental health is an issue to be taken very seriously; where are these suggestions that has offended Chairman Mitchell?

I feel that Mitchell is playing to his audience, those that would not dare question him when he says that there is something to be found “impertinent” and “offensive; if they even knew what “impertinent” meant  -“impertinent /ɪmˈpəːtɪnənt/ adjective  – not showing proper respect; rude”; you are very welcome.

It would appear that each and every time that this issue is reintroduced and Chairman Mitchell weighs in on it, he speaks in a threatening tone what does not enough an amicable resolve to the matter.

The Bahamas deserves better because the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) fails for one reason, it is their nature.

END