ON THURSDAY Prime Minister Perry Christie tried — without success – to distance his government from the comments of two of his cabinet ministers, Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell and Labour Minister Shane Gibson.

Mr Mitchell, who has repeatedly chastised Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian for filing for bankruptcy protection in a Delaware court, warned that Mr Izmirlian’s residency status in the Bahamas could be revoked if he could not conform to the conduct expected of “economic guests.”

It would be interesting to know Mr Mitchell’s version of what conduct is expected of “economic guests,” particularly Mr Izmirlian whose $3.5 billion investment is about to be unfairly snatched from him.

Of course, not to be outdone was the echo from cabinet minister Shane Gibson who has suggested that government should start performing “psychological evaluations” on all foreign developers seeking to do business in this country.

Of course, it was the Prime Minister himself who stepped out of line and set the tone for this last remark when he questioned Mr Izmirlian’s mental health.

According to Mr Christie, one should not listen to these cabinet ministers. Government’s view, he said, could only be reflected by himself “in the correspondence I write and the position I take on behalf of the government, and I think each minister said so.”

And so Mr Christie must take full responsibility for his statement that the press release from Baha Mar — which was only fighting for its right to carry on business — had “given him grave concern for the state of Mr Izmirlian’s mind.” This remark was the launch paid for Mr Gibson’s lunatic suggestion that all potential investors to this country “should have psychological evaluation.”

“The ministers were reflecting their feelings,” Mr Christie explained.

“Most of the ministers who spoke said they were doing it because they were offended that there was disrespect to the Office of the Prime Minister. So my point is I accept that that’s what they said, I accept that that’s why they said it.

“But it was peculiar to them,” Mr Christie explained, “and the government of the Bahamas is spoken for and on behalf of by myself in this particular matter and that’s the position I’m taking.”

If Mr Christie is in fact speaking for the Bahamas government, then we must ask if he – or any of his ministers– understands collective cabinet responsibility under the Westminster system of government?

Under that system members of the cabinet are required to publicly support all government decisions made in Cabinet, even if they do not privately agree with them.

If a member of the cabinet wishes to openly object to a cabinet decision then they are obliged to resign from cabinet.

As we have seen neither a cabinet reshuffle nor a resignation, we can only conclude that Mr Christie has lost complete control — or else he fully agrees with the statements being made by his cabinet colleagues – and the statement of his personal position is just camouflage for the machinations going on behind the scenes.

Could it be suggested that Mr Christie’s position was not made in cabinet thus leaving his colleagues free to undermine his authority with their ridiculous comments?

If so, then his statement on his position is indeed worthless.

Anyway, Mr Mitchell cocked a snook at Mr Christie when the very next day it was reported that in a recent interview Mr Mitchell had said that he had instructed officials to investigate complaints made about Mr Izmirlian’s conduct in the Bahamas.

Later on in the day an unconfirmed rumour was also making the sip-sip rounds that Mr Izmirlian’s bank accounts were also to be investigated.

Whenever we see a photo of the stern-faced Fred Mitchell we can’t help but recall the lines in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, when Caesar remarks:

“Let me have men about me that are fat…Sleek-headed men, and as such men as sleep a-nights. ……Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous.”

Mr Mitchell today wants to be seen as his prime minister’s protector, but of all his ministers, it is Mr Mitchell who most covets the prime minister’s seat. Not too long ago it was Mr Mitchell who declared that he would never again sit on the back bench. Yes, Mr Christie, your Cassius has ambition.

If Mr Christie wants Bahamians to believe that he is truly on their side, the obvious decision would be to take the shortest route to get Baha Mar completed and opened for business – and Bahamians back to work.

And whether, he wants to acknowledge it or not the shortest route is bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 in Delaware’s bankruptcy court. And, contrary to the lies of such persons as “Big Bad Brad”, this is not an attempt to cut creditors out. It is a way of protecting, not only Baha Mar, but all of its creditors.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy laws help an honest debtor to get a fresh start by preventing debt collection actions while he is trying to reorganise his business and get it back on a firm footing so that — in the case of Baha Mar— it can open, function, and start paying its creditors.

Respecting the Bahamas’ sovereignty, the Delaware court requested that the Bahamas court cooperate in recognising and enforcing its orders.

Before our court could hear the matter the government had made it clear that this position was not acceptable.

Although, government made sovereignty the excuse, Sir Baltron Bethel, made government’s machinations clear in an e-mail to Beijing lawyer, Michael Zou of Hogan Lovells, an international law firm.

“One way of making up the equity shortfall of Baha Mar,” Sir Baltron, Mr Christie’s private adviser, suggested, “would be for the Bank to advance the idea of an additional equity partner with hotel and casino experience being brought in within say 90 days. Such an arrangement could also satisfy the bank on the assurances of successful operation going forward and accommodate Baha Mar on delayed payments. Such a suggestion should preferably come from Bank and not Gov to prevent Baha Mar taking the position Gov is trying to push Izmirlian out.”

Now we all know the despicable plot. Foreign investors see it as a land grab of a private investor’s property. Having done the deed our government wants to walk away pretending to have clean hands. At least Pilate washed his hands before he left the scene.

China Construction (CCA) is blamed for unsatisfactory workmanship and not meeting deadlines.

This was a Beijing construction company that Mr Izmirlian was required by China’s Import Export Bank to engage if it wanted the bank’s loan.

It is claimed that CCA has failed to carry out the work.

This being the case, under the contract, although Baha Mar cannot replace CCA, it can bring in qualified contractors to do the unfinished work, or work on areas where improvement is needed. Baha Mar can then bill CCA for the work done.

Mr Izmirlian wants to bring in Bahamian contractors to complete the work and get the hotel open.

Mr Christie says he is on the side of Bahamians.

If this is true, this is his opportunity to prove that statement by allowing Baha Mar to hire Bahamian contractors to complete the work.

Already they have shown that they are more than capable.

Whatever argument there is between Baha Mar and CCA can be fought out in the courts, while Baha Mar is allowed to flourish.

It is now up to Mr Christie to demonstrate whose side he is on — the Bahamas or Beijing.