When Prime Minister Perry Christie and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) were courting and beseeching Sarkis Izmirlian to redevelop Cable Beach, no one in the party was singing Bob Marley’s “Redemption Song” or referencing Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Instead many in the party were all too glad to enjoy the hospitality of the white, foreign investor whom a number of them now seek to demonize.
Izmirlian was the PLP’s man, whom they lauded and treated almost as the second coming, someone they invited to develop the region’s largest tourism project at some of the most prime tourism real estate in the country. The PLP was all too happy to hand over to Izmirlian a billion dollars in concessions including a trove of precious real estate. Today he is persona non grata with talk of his being investigated and the possibility of his permanent residency being revoked.
The tunes they sang back then were more on the order of “Oh Happy Day”, Bobby McFerrin’s, “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” and Pharrell Williams’ blockbuster song “Happy”, which seemed to be Christie’s theme song, which he kept singing right up until the collapse of the Baha Mar bubble and the PLP’s relationship with Izmirlian:
“It might seem crazy what I'm about to say
Sunshine she's here, you can take away
I'm a hot air balloon, I could go to space
With the air, like I don't care baby by the way.”
At the time that the PLP was in thrall to Izmirlian’s Baha Mar dream, many thought that the PLP needed to “emancipate itself from the mental slavery” of overgenerous concession to a foreign developer including land off Gladstone Road the PLP intended to sell outright to Izmirlian.
The Free National Movement (FNM) administration clawed back that concession, granting a long lease instead. The FNM also reduced a number of monetary concessions that the PLP gleefully gave to Izmirlian.
Giveaway
Way back then, many thought that members of the PLP administration had gone crazy and needed to have their collective consciousness checked in their massive giveaway of Bahamian land and treasure. Perhaps there should have been a psychological examination at the time of those who were granting all manner of concessions. Many thought back then that the Baha Mar deal was too big, that its collapse or inability to be sustainable might pose a sort of “existential threat” to the country. There is a term in psychology known as projection, where one projects one’s deep flaws and mistakes on others. It is Christie and the PLP who were so enthralled by Izmirlian and other foreign investors, selling off thousands upon thousands of acres to foreigners. It was also Christie and his cabinet who gave away 10,000 acres of Mayaguana, which could have effectively made the easternmost island in the country a foreign enclave.
The Bahamian residents of the island would have been relegated to a sort of reservation surrounded by foreigners owning some of the best land on the island, including prime beachfront property. What would Clarence Bain have thought of this? What would Bob Marley have thought of this?
The party that intended to alienate 10,000 acres to foreigners at the expense of Bahamians living at Mayaguana does not enjoy the moral authority to sing Marley’s freedom song. It was the FNM who got back thousands of acres the PLP giddily and gleefully gave away at Mayaguana.
The PLP does need to sing a song of redemption: To redeem itself for so often betraying its progressive roots and foundational values; to redeem itself for its betrayal of core election promises; to redeem itself for the spectacular greed and conflicts of interests by certain cabinet ministers; to redeem itself for helping to plunge the country into a potential economic nightmare; to redeem itself for an extraordinary decline in public standards by quite a number of ministers; and to redeem itself for insipid rhetoric as thousands of Bahamians face the prospect of unemployment and financial collapse.
Emancipation Day must be about more than rhetoric and grandstanding. It should mean that we zealously guard Bahamian land and the interests of the Bahamian people.
The rhetoric by Izmirlian has at times been over-the-top and disrespectful. But there are ways of responding effectively and intelligently that are more becoming of ministers. Protecting the good name and interests of The Bahamas does not require antics which diminish the dignity of one’s office and Parliament.
Meltdown
The meltdown at Baha Mar has revealed all manner of conflicts of interests by certain PLPs who were more than happy to make money from Baha Mar Nation, an appellation they only recently seem to have been recognized as offensive by some. There are reports that a senior member of the cabinet is financially heavily invested in Baha Mar through a company or companies which have done work at the resort.
Attorney General Allyson Maynard Gibson, who at one time seemed more than happy to have Izmirlian as a client, has her own conflict of interest. When the PLP was negotiating a heads of agreement with Izmirlian in 2005 while she served in the cabinet, her law firm represented Izmirlian. We now know that her husband and daughters have business interests at Baha Mar.
The attorney general initially said that the retail spaces were her daughters’. She then clarified that the space was leased by her husband. Two of these were appointed to their daughters.
In April 2014, Baha Mar issued a press release with a photo of a group touring luxury boutique spaces at Baha Mar. The attorney general’s husband was a part of the group.
The release noted: “Luxury Retail Limited and John Bull, two of the largest high-end retail operators in The Bahamas, will be bringing some of the best luxury brands in the world to Baha Mar.” The AG’s husband is the CEO of Luxury Retail Limited.
Given her prior representation of Izmirlian and her immediate family’s business interests, Maynard Gibson should have recused herself from leading the Bahamas delegation to China and from related negotiations.
Moreover, given that she is in the sensitive post of attorney general, even an appearance of a conflict is deeply troubling and does harm to the office.
Her mentioning her family’s interests is not enough. She should have insisted on being recused and the prime minister should not have had her lead the delegation.
Then again, with Christie’s glaring conflict of interest as an oil company consultant, perhaps he is less able to see conflicts of interest staring him in the face.
To repeat from last week: Is Christie knowledgeable about any senior ministers in his cabinet who have business interests at Baha Mar and who may also have a conflict of interest in negotiations with the megaresort? Does he believe an investigation should be launched into this matter?
Accountability
Given the lowering of public standards by various ministers, it is worth noting in some detail a number of provisions in the section on Accountability from The Manual of Cabinet and Ministry Procedure.
“34. A minister or a parliamentary secretary must perform the duties of his office impartially and uninfluenced by fear or favor or self interest.
“35. A minister must be frank and honest in official dealings with colleagues and must give frank and honest answers to questions raised in Parliament bearing in mind always that he is conducting the people's business.
“36. A minister must avoid situations in which his private interest, whether pecuniary or otherwise, conflicts or might reasonably be thought to conflict with his public duties.
“37. When a minister possesses, directly or indirectly, an interest which conflicts or might reasonably be thought to conflict with his public duty, or improperly to influence his conduct in the discharge of his responsibilities in respect of some matters with which he is concerned, he should disclose that interest to the prime minister or Cabinet. Should circumstances change after an initial disclosure was made, so that new or additional facts become material, the minister must disclose the further information.
“38. When the interests of members of his immediate family are involved a minister must disclose those interests to the extent that they are known to him. Members of the immediate family will ordinarily include only the minister's spouse and dependent children but may include other members of his household or family when their interests are closely connected with his.
“39. A minister must not use information obtained in the course of official duties to gain directly or indirectly a pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person.
In particular, a minister must scrupulously avoid investments or other transactions about which he has, or might reasonably be thought to have, early or confidential information which might confer on him unfair or improper advantage over other persons.
“40. A minister must not:
(b) Solicit or accept any benefit, advantage or promise of future advantage whether for himself, his immediate family or any business concern or trust with which he is associated from persons who are in, or seek to be in, any contractual or special relationship with government;
(c) Except as may be permitted under the rules applicable to his office accept any gift, hospitality or concessional travel offered in connection with the discharge of the duties of his office.
“42. A minister must not allow the pursuit of his private interests to interfere with the proper discharge of his public duties.
“43. A minister must not engage in nepotism, i.e.., the use of his office and power to secure advantages for himself, his relatives or associates to the disadvantage of others who would otherwise have received the advantage.
“44. A minister who violates these rules (34 - 43) leaves himself open to discipline and, depending on the seriousness of the breach, may be relieved of his ministerial appointment.
“45. Ministers should adopt a broad interpretation of the requirement that they take into account the interests of family members and all interests of their own, when considering whether there is a conflict, or a potential or apparent conflict, which should be declared. Generally, declarations should be made in all cases where an interest exists which could not be said to be shared with the rest of the community.”
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
