Former Free National Movement (FNM) Chairman Michael Pintard breathed life back into a controversy that had faded from the front pages when he sparked new questions surrounding FNM Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis' explanation about the nature of his association with Livingston "Toggie" Bullard, one of the men at the heart of an alleged murder for hire plot that consumed debate in Parliament and public discussion last month.
Like many others who heard Minnis' bizarre explanation, we wondered whether there was more to the story than what had been revealed.
Now Pintard, through his recent statements, has suggested Minnis' statement in Parliament was not an accurate reflection of the timeline of events.
Minnis had been quiet about his association with Bullard when he spoke in the House of Assembly on March 14, calling for police to intervene over claims that Lyford Cay millionaire Peter Nygard had hired hit men to murder his billionaire neighbor Louis Bacon.
Bullard was named in court documents as one of the "gangsters" hired by Nygard.
Pintard was identified as the person who uncovered the alleged plot.
Minnis said in Parliament on March 14 that at least one of the two named "gangsters" was a former convicted criminal.
Later, after National Review questioned whether he had associated with Bullard and Wisler "Bobo" Davilma, he confirmed in the House of Assembly that he had associated with Bullard.
He told Parliament on March 23 that Bullard came to his house three times: The first time he came to ask him to warn Pintard that he was about to be set up by certain government members. The other two times, Bullard came to bring him fish, Minnis said.
The fish story left many scratching their heads. It seemed odd that Minnis would allow someone he does not know that well to come to his gated residence to bring him fish. That the story came days before Good Friday was also unfortunate timing for Minnis.
The FNM leader told the House of Assembly that Pintard "defied" him and went to that meeting and it was at that meeting that he was recorded.
With that one statement, Pintard was tossed far under the bus. But Pintard indicated on the Star FM show "Jeffrey" with Jeff Lloyd on Thursday that he could not have defied Minnis on this matter because by the time Minnis spoke to him about the so-called warning, he had already had the meeting in question.
Did Minnis know this? This story as outlined does not line up. Both versions of this story cannot be true. Was one party confused about what happened when? Is it the passage of time that has caused these versions of events not to line up?
We, indeed like others, are curious.
Pintard's recollection of events do not square with Minnis'. It seems illogical that Minnis warned his party's chairman not to attend a meeting as he was about to be set up, and Pintard, who had already attended the meeting, did not indicate that the warning was coming too late. It also seems illogical that Minnis warned Pintard that he was about to be set up without the FNM leader having any knowledge about the nature of the warning.
Was the warning simply as vague as, "I am told by a constituent that there will be an attempt by government members to set you up at a meeting you will soon be attending. I do not know what the meeting is about but I advise you not to go"?
If indeed Minnis had such a conversation with Pintard about a pending set-up but no inkling about why and how government members were about to set up the FNM chairman, then that is basically about as strange as it gets. Minnis has said he did not know of the Nygard-Bacon matter and the alleged murder plot until it was reported in The Tribune on March 10.
Faced with two conflicting versions of the story about Minnis' purported warning to the then FNM chairman, some still wonder whether Minnis indeed was a late comer to the party. It is inconceivable that his chairman left him completely in the dark and that their conversation about the murder plot meeting was only a vague discussion.
If Minnis had knowledge that his party's chairman was about to be set up by government members, Minnis was obligated to demand that Pintard reveal the nature of this pending set up. If Pintard refused, the leader ought to have taken that refusal as a grave insult.
The only thing that seems clear in this whole affair and the involvement of FNM personalities is that there is still a need for clarity.
When he came under fire in the House of Assembly over the matter last month, Minnis said he is prepared to take a lie detector test on the matter.
"I'm not afraid of that, Mr. Speaker," the FNM leader said. "I know what I heard and I know what conversation I would have had. If you are that concerned, prime minister, I'm prepared to take a lie detector test, would you do it?"
Prime Minister Perry Christie said at the time he is not the subject of an investigation.
"You need to, because when you were faced with your chairman being threatened to be set up, you ought to have called the police," Christie said.
"When I was faced with the realization that these allegations were made, I called the minister of national security and said to him I would wish for police to be involved. My immediate response was 'let the police investigate'. You allowed your chairman to go and be set up."
An open wound
This story continues to have life because of what Minnis has admitted and his failure to provide an explanation that many within his own party have found satisfactory.
Last month, Fort Charlotte MP Dr. Andre Rollins rubbed Minnis supporters the wrong way when he acknowledged what many people had been thinking. He called the whole fish story "comical", and it was indeed that.
While Pintard said on Thursday he had already attended the meeting when Minnis spoke to him on the matter, he declined to say when we asked him on Friday whether he, at the time, told Minnis the meeting had already taken place.
Pintard suggested there was nothing significant about the sequence of events as revealed by him on Lloyd's show.
"Nothing of national importance rises or falls on this issue," the former chairman told National Review. "Nothing turns on this issue of the sequence of events, and it is my hope that we would focus on essential issues relative to this matter, which is now before the courts.
"The only person who could have possibly been affected by any statement made in the House by the FNM leader would have been myself, and I am satisfied that what is important is we have to focus on what is now before the courts and the government's inappropriate response to the revelations made by Nygard."
Pintard is being politically naive to think that his revelation on the sequence of events is irrelevant. The significance of his contradicting the leader appears lost on him. It does not reflect positively on Minnis and it further erodes the efforts of the leadership to portray itself as focused and serious.
Pintard's resignation on March 21 was supposed to bring some finality to this matter and stop the bleeding for the FNM. But his recent admission demonstrated that the wound remains open.
As it relates to Minnis' plea of ignorance and decision to scold Pintard, the former chairman is obviously saying 'not so fast; I'm not a scapegoat', notwithstanding his efforts to downplay the angle that formed the basis of The Nassau Guardian's lead story on Friday.
The question some FNMs are asking is what might be unknown that may be a bombshell in the coming election cycle.
The worry and apprehension has not just become about what Minnis has said, but what might come to light in relation to this whole saga at an inopportune time for the FNM. With his well observed deficiencies in charisma, inspiration and leadership pedigree on display, Minnis will likely continue to face questions about a matter that has hovered in the shadows, but seems far from disappearing. Those questions could weaken further the already fledgling Minnis brand.
The undoing and failure of Minnis and the FNM in this election cycle may not lie in the FNM being a sinking ship but more so an FNM ship stalled and run aground by an unequipped, unskilled captain unable to navigate the political waters. After all the scandals and failed promises of this PLP government, the question of who will win the general election remains extremely difficult to answer.
Minnis said early on in this controversy that the Bahamian people will thank the FNM for "bringing forth this whole issue".
But there is nothing to thank the party for. The FNM should be embarrassed that it has so bungled this issue when it had a prime opportunity to call the government to account on various critical matters connected to it. But the involvement of FNM personalities like Pintard and Minnis and their inability to get their stories to line up have caused the party to lose credibility in its feeble attempts to control the narrative.
Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian
