In recent weeks, Fred Mitchell, Chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), has been vocal in his criticism of Sarkis Izmirlian, the developer behind the troubled Baha Mar project. By branding Izmirlian a “failed developer,” Mitchell and the PLP appear to be sidestepping a recent judgment against China Construction America (CCA), which implicates officials within the “New Day” government in alleged collusion. This attempt to deflect raises pressing questions about the PLP’s accountability, transparency, and the potential hypocrisy of their current stance.

The Attempt to Paint Izmirlian as Solely Responsible

In the narrative promoted by Mitchell and the PLP, the failure of Baha Mar is pinned solely on Sarkis Izmirlian, while the role of CCA, the project’s lead construction company, and potential issues of sabotage remain unmentioned. Mitchell’s argument suggests that the collapse of Baha Mar was due to Izmirlian’s negligence or incompetence, rather than any outside interference. However, this interpretation ignores a key aspect of the situation: the $1.6 billion judgment awarded to Izmirlian in damages, which implies something far more complex than simple developer failure.

The judgment against CCA indicates that Baha Mar’s struggles were not due to a “failed” developer alone but rather due to interference, delays, and possible collusion involving Chinese interests and Bahamian officials. The omission of these facts in Mitchell’s statements risks misleading the Bahamian public about the true circumstances surrounding Baha Mar’s failure.

The PLP’s Questionable Role in a “Private Matter”

Mitchell’s recent remarks instruct Bahamians to “sit down, be quiet, and stay out of this private dispute.” Ironically, it was the PLP, during the Christie administration—where Mitchell and current Prime Minister Philip Davis both served as cabinet ministers—that injected itself into what was initially a private matter. The administration justified its intervention as a measure to protect Bahamian subcontractors’ interests. Yet, it is now clear that the intervention may have been far from neutral, and it may even have contributed to the challenges faced by the developer.

Despite funds being provided by Izmirlian’s team to pay subcontractors, the contractor, CCA, used this payment to purchase and develop another Bahamian property. For this to happen, permits and approvals would likely have been required, suggesting that Bahamian officials had to be aware of and possibly even sanctioned these actions. This scenario is eerily reminiscent of other instances of poor communication and accountability, such as the controversial entry of Carnival into the country early in the PLP’s administration, where no official took responsibility for the permits issued.

Collusion or Coincidence?

The forensic reports due later this month are likely to shed more light on the potential collusion between Bahamian officials and CCA. Nonetheless, the timing and circumstances surrounding the PLP’s involvement in the project have raised serious concerns. The assertion that the government’s intervention was motivated purely by concern for Bahamian subcontractors is at odds with the details emerging from the investigation, which suggests that key decisions may have been influenced by interests beyond national pride or protectionism.

Mitchell’s current rhetoric ignores the complexity of these issues, preferring to keep public attention on Izmirlian as the “failed developer” rather than acknowledging the PLP’s role in the ongoing scandal. The Bahamian people deserve an honest answer: if the PLP’s only aim was to help subcontractors, how did a significant amount of the project’s funds end up being used by CCA for separate ventures? Why was no oversight applied to ensure that funds were used appropriately?

Deflection Tactics and the FNM Blame Game

Another deflection tactic used by the PLP is the suggestion that the Free National Movement (FNM) is spreading rumors about potential job losses due to the judgment against CCA. This narrative seems to serve as a smokescreen to distract from the PLP’s alleged role in the scandal. There is little concrete evidence that the FNM has launched such a campaign, and it’s worth asking why Mitchell would choose this moment to bring up such a claim.

If the PLP’s involvement was as innocent as they claim, why not fully cooperate with the investigation and present the forensic evidence to the public? The refusal to engage with the findings of the judgment—while deflecting blame onto a developer and political opposition—paints a picture of a government unwilling to be accountable for its past actions.

Accountability Is Key

For a government that prides itself on being a “New Day” administration, the PLP’s handling of the Baha Mar scandal demonstrates a continuation of old ways. Bahamians deserve answers, transparency, and an end to the rhetoric that paints one party as the scapegoat while officials avoid accountability for their own potential missteps.

In light of the judgment, it’s time for Mitchell and the PLP to follow their own advice and exercise caution in their statements. As more information emerges, it’s essential that the PLP is held accountable for its role in the Baha Mar fiasco and that the Bahamian people receive clear and transparent answers about how and why government officials were involved.

END