By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Senior Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

FORMER Works Minister Desmond Bannister allegedly promised to publicly apologise for the “wrong information” he gave about Darnell Osborne, but never did so, a former Bahamas Power and Light consultant claims in a new witness statement.

The statement of C McMahon Campbell, a former BPL public relations consultant, comes as lawyers prepare for trial after Mrs Osborne, Nick Dean and Nicola Thompson, former BPL board members, sued the government for wrongful dismissal, misfeasance and slander.

 In her witness statement last week, Mrs Osborne claimed Mr Bannister’s allegations about her caused distress and significant damage to her professional reputation.

 BPL’s former board disintegrated into two factions over several issues in 2018, including the Shell North America deal, hiring practices, travel practices of senior executives and the requirements of the executive director role.

 Mrs Osborne’s faction was forced off the board. After she criticised Mr Bannister and accused the Minnis administration of interference, Mr Bannister claimed he intervened to stop BPL from paying her personal bills, including make-up services and the installation of a home security system. Later, it was revealed that the make-up services were for a BPL photoshoot and that other top BPL officials encouraged Mrs Osborne to set up a home security system after another board member mentioned a security incident at his home.

 Mr Campbell, in his witness statement, claims he met Mr Bannister and the permanent secretary to discuss the allegations about Mrs Osborne.

 “In that meeting,” he says, “I disclosed a timesheet with the names of female employees of BPL that ‘got their make-up done’ for a BPL public relations photoshoot.

 “I showed Minister Bannister where Darnell’s name appeared at the bottom of the group one roster with a total of about 31 women, including Darnell. The total invoice for the makeup work for the 31 women was $1,500 which was paid by BPL.

 “I also explained to Minister Bannister that the $750 that he was floating around as a personal makeup expense of Darnell belonged to the women in group two which did not include Darnell. I also explained that BPL did not pay $750 for the makeup work for group two and that the $750 expense for the makeup for group two was paid from my salary.”

 Mr Campbell’s statement continued: “Minister Bannister acknowledged to me that he was given wrong information, and he promised to ‘apologise publicly.’ I suggested that Minister Bannister avoid ‘all the back and forth and apologise on Saturday so that the matter with Osborne and the other BPL board members would go away quickly in the news cycle.’ I promised to assist him. Minister Bannister told me he would apologise at the appropriate time. On the next occasion that I saw Minister Bannister on television he did not apologise as he promised, but said that he was ‘told’ to stay silent on this matter.”

 Former Bahamas Electrical Workers Union (BEWU) President Paul Maynard has also given a witness statement in the case.

 Mr Maynard claims that in April 2018, Mr Bannister told him he was considering removing three board members because the “board wasn’t getting along.” Mr Maynard claims he told him doing this would be difficult because the board “was an autonomous board by an Act of Parliament and the members once appointed had to resign in order to be removed before the agreed term was done.”

 Mr Maynard’s statement noted: “More than a week later I again talked to Minister Bannister, he informed me that Darnell was one of the board members who the Cabinet wanted to replace. Again, I expressed my disappointment with this situation as the chairman did not deserve to be dismissed especially in favour of Whitney Heastie. In addition, Mrs Osborne was responsible for critical financial funding for the FNM. Although I’m PLP, this was a concern for me as, in my opinion, it was vicious and uncalled for.

 “The prime minister, Dr Minnis, also spoke to me on at least two occasions and I conveyed my extreme disappointment with the situation, and I opined at the time to the prime minister that this wasn’t going to end well for the FNM government.”

 When contacted yesterday about the allegations, Mr Bannister told The Tribune he had “not seen” any of the witness statements and could not comment on them in any event “since the matter is subjudice”.

 “Accordingly, I am prohibited from publicly providing my views on the evidence,” Mr Bannister said.

 He added: “The plaintiffs have withdrawn their action against me so I am no longer a defendant, but I will still be a witness, and my witness statement will be for use in the court where the action will be litigated, not in the media.”