The Speaker of the Bahamian House of Assembly, who also serves as the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Member of Parliament for Bamboo Town, appears to misunderstand the impartial and balanced nature of her role. The Speaker's primary responsibility is to act as a neutral arbiter, ensuring fair and respectful deliberation for all members of the House, irrespective of political affiliation. However, recent actions suggest an unfortunate bias, as the Speaker seems to prioritize the interests of PLP members while displaying hostility toward opposition members. This behaviour undermines the dignity and impartiality of the office and fosters a perception of partisanship, which is damaging to public trust.

The Speaker’s conduct—marked by perceived rudeness and apparent alignment with a political agenda—highlights a deeper systemic issue. The current rules and traditions of the Westminster parliamentary system, under which the Speaker is elected, require urgent reform to ensure such positions are filled by individuals committed to neutrality and fairness. Positions such as the Speaker of the House, Commissioner of Police, and Permanent Secretary must transcend political influence to safeguard democratic principles and public confidence.

These developments underscore the need for comprehensive reforms to modernize our parliamentary system and make these issues central to future election campaigns. It is imperative that the Bahamian people demand accountability and structural adjustments to ensure the impartiality and integrity of such pivotal roles. Such changes would enhance the democratic process and restore faith in the institutions that are foundational to governance in the Bahamas.

If we follow the logic of the situation, it’s likely that the person in question is already aware of being under investigation. It’s now up to those with inquisitive minds to deduce who this individual might be—someone with significant power and connections in both the Bahamas police, aviation and the drug world to orchestrate such an operation-and this is no new person to politics.

.

Issue formal and public diplomatic requests to the United States Government for the immediate disclosure of the implicated individual's identity.

Statement on the Handling of Allegations by Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis

The recent revelations regarding the alleged involvement of a high-ranking Bahamian politician in a federal indictment by the U.S. Southern District of New York highlight the dire need for accountability, transparency, and forthrightness from our nation's leadership. Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis' public remarks on this matter have done little to reassure the Bahamian people or safeguard our country's reputation on the international stage.

The Prime Minister's suggestion that U.S. officials have refused to provide the name of the implicated politician raises serious questions about the strength and execution of our bilateral agreements with the United States. Such agreements, rooted in mutual cooperation and trust, should ensure the timely and accurate exchange of information, particularly in cases that directly implicate national security and governance. If the Prime Minister is insinuating that the United States is failing to honour its commitments, this assertion must be substantiated with concrete evidence.

Moreover, his comments attempting to divert attention to unrelated issues within the U.S. undermine the gravity of the allegations at hand. While corruption is a global challenge, the Bahamian government's responsibility lies in addressing the accusations against its own officials, not deflecting by pointing fingers elsewhere. This approach not only tarnishes the integrity of his administration but also detracts from the nation's efforts to restore its image as a trustworthy and law-abiding jurisdiction.

The Bahamian people deserve decisive action and clear answers. If the Prime Minister and his administration are genuinely committed to rooting out corruption, they must:

1. Issue a formal and public diplomatic request to the United States for the immediate disclosure of the implicated individual's identity, as provided under the relevant bilateral agreements.

2. Conduct an independent and thorough investigation into the allegations, led by an impartial entity with no ties to the government or political parties.

3. Commit to full transparency throughout the process, ensuring that those found guilty are held accountable, regardless of their rank or affiliation.

Anything less than these measures would signal a failure of leadership and an unwillingness to uphold the principles of justice and good governance. By attempting to shield the implicated individual or obscure the truth, the Prime Minister risks further eroding public trust and damaging The Bahamas' standing on the world stage.

If the PLP administration were to adopt a firm stance similar to that of President Ali, it would risk losing 90% of its support base, which is largely sustained by an entrenched system of corruption. For instance, there have been cases of senior financial officials approving invoices that are inflated to four times the advertised cost, even for contracts that ostensibly underwent the bidding process. Furthermore, Brave lacks the 'balls' to confront Bahamian Permanent Secretaries and technical staff in such a decisive manner.

Deputy Prime Minister Cooper, I am surprised by your decision to challenge the DEA's intelligence and investigative processes publicly. Having worked with such agencies in the past, I can attest that their surveillance and case-building are exhaustive, with meticulous attention to detail before any case is presented to a grand jury. This is not an area where conjecture or deflection serves well. I strongly advise reserving public commentary until the trial concludes and all evidence is presented. Premature statements can only complicate matters further.

@ThisIsOurs

It seems you may not be familiar with how the Government of the Bahamas' rfp "bib Process" works. After a bid is won, the situation often changes dramatically. What was initially proposed or agreed upon frequently transforms into something entirely different.

With the Ministry of Finance overseeing technology in the Bahamas, you can often trace their "fingerprints" on nearly every technological implementation. So, when you say, "read the specs," it’s not that simple. The intentional confusion embedded in the process benefits not only the vendor but also those in positions to make the final technical and financial decisions.

This isn’t speculation—I’ve experienced it firsthand.

"criminal conspiracy" my friend

Companies often exploit proprietary restrictions, locking basic functions like updating dates or adding users behind costly barriers to maximize profits. This strategy forces users into expensive maintenance contracts for tasks that could easily be managed on the front end.

A glaring example of such abuse affecting the Bahamian people is the $95K DigiTag Solo License Plate Printer at the Prison, which comes with a $75K annual maintenance contract or the cost for DataTorque to issue reports. This turns simple upkeep, like roller cleaning, into an unjustifiable financial burden.

The bigger question remains: Who holds this contract, and why was the country left without vehicle license plates for almost two years? Did anyone in the current administration investigate or attempt to resolve this glaring inefficiency, or is this a case of deliberate neglect or criminal conspiracy?

> Inside Deal Gone Bad?

*Omni Financial Group and Affiliates File Breach of Contract and Defamation Claim Against Government, Pointing to Political and Business Connections Behind the Dispute*

Omni Financial Group, along with its affiliates and Peter Maury, president of the Association of Bahamas Marinas (ABM), has filed a breach of contract and defamation claim against the Government. They allege "irreparable damage" caused by the Ministry of Finance’s claims that fees collected from foreign boaters via the SeaZPass portal were not properly paid to the Public Treasury.

Harvey Morris, director of Omni, stated in a November 28, 2024, affidavit that an independent audit confirmed no missing funds. The audit found "reconciling items" explaining the $43,664 discrepancy.

Omni’s records show that $4.493 million in foreign yacht charter and cruising permit fees were collected, contradicting claims by Simon Wilson, the Ministry of Finance’s financial secretary, that up to $5 million was not remitted to the Government.

The legal claim argues that Wilson’s statements have damaged Omni’s reputation and business, undermining relationships. Additionally, it asserts that the ten-year agreement with the Ministry to operate the boating fee portal is still valid due to the Government’s failure to properly terminate it.

Omni’s $3.473 million damages claim includes $3.35 million for portal development costs and $122,500 in commission income. Legal documents suggest that had the contract continued, over $58 million in fees would have been collected, yielding $1.9 million in commissions.

In response, the Government has filed a counterclaim for breach of contract, accusing Omni and ABM of failing to reinvest 10% of collected funds as agreed and not providing access to the SeaZPass system’s back-end process.

The issue of not providing the Ministry with access to the back-end process of the SeaZPass system sounds remarkably similar to the ongoing experience the Road Traffic Department has had with the DataTorque Transport Management System. This lack of transparency, the Government argues, created significant challenges in matching payments to applications and processing permits efficiently.

This situation has raised suspicions about Simon Wilson’s alleged connections to several companies—IslandWide Cabling & Consulting, JDL, Walker’s Industry, DataTorque, and others believed to be linked to him. These ties have led to public speculation about potential conflicts of interest, especially in light of accusations of political interference and patronage.

Critics argue that these business relationships may have influenced the Government’s decision to cancel Omni’s contract, suggesting a possible personal or business motive behind the move.

**(3) The Necessity of Reform Beyond Rhetoric**
While the PLP faces these internal and external pressures, the reality is that systemic reform is no longer optional. The Davis administration must recognize that the international community, particularly the United States, is unlikely to tolerate the continuation of entrenched corruption. The Independent Commission of Investigations Bill, while an important first step, must be followed by actions that demonstrate tangible accountability.

**Recommendations for Navigating This Reality:**
Engage Support Base in Reform Efforts: The administration must educate its supporters on the necessity of accountability and the long-term benefits of transparent governance. This involves shifting the political culture away from cronyism and favouritism.

*Strengthen Leadership Credibility:* Brave Davis must proactively address concerns about his reputation by demonstrating a personal commitment to reform through transparency, ethical leadership, and cooperation with international partners.

*Expand the Bill’s Scope:* The Bill must include measures to address corruption beyond law enforcement, extending its reach to all areas of government, including ministers, ministries, and departments.

*Independent Oversight:* To gain international trust, the Davis administration should establish mechanisms for external oversight of reform efforts, ensuring impartiality and credibility.

**(4) Dr. Minnis’ Position:** Enforcement Alone is Not Enough
While Dr. Minnis’ emphasis on enforcing existing laws is valid, it overlooks the systemic issues that have prevented those laws from being effective. The entrenched culture of corruption within the RBPF and government cannot be dismantled through enforcement alone. Structural and cultural reforms, as proposed in the Independent Commission of Investigations Bill, are essential to addressing the root causes of corruption.

**Comparison to Dr. Minnis’ Tenure:**
It is worth noting that during his own tenure, Dr. Minnis also faced criticism for not fully addressing corruption. His administration’s failure to introduce and enforce similar reforms weakens his argument against the current administration’s efforts.

The Davis administration is navigating a political minefield where reform efforts risk alienating its traditional support base while inaction risks further international isolation and reputational damage. The Independent Commission of Investigations Bill is a step in the right direction, but it must be supported by expanded reforms and cultural shifts to address systemic corruption comprehensively.

Prime Minister Davis must demonstrate bold leadership, both by enforcing laws and embracing structural reforms, to rebuild trust domestically and internationally. The PLP must decide whether it will perpetuate the status quo or embrace accountability, knowing that the latter is the only path to restoring The Bah’ credibility and ensuring its long-term stability.