The Tribune

ENGLERSTON MP Glenys Hanna-Martin seems to have assumed the role of “point guard” to protect the four-member PLP Opposition in the House of Assembly as she bobs up and down on “points of order”, interrupting the debates of various government members.

In the current Budget debate, she tackled one of the newest Members of the House — Fort Charlotte MP Mark Humes – objecting to his generalisation of “crooked”. She wanted him to clarify to whom his finger pointed when he made such an accusation. Was she, for example, included in his blanket “allegations about corruption and crookedness”?

Mr Humes had been talking about that morning’s newspaper headlines about waste and suspicions of dishonesty.

“Mr Speaker,” he had said, “in all of what we are hearing – however some may want to put it - moneys are missing from the cookie jar– and the general perception is someone or somebodies just seem to be getting away with it. Bad debt, illegal contracts, crooked obligations, and crooked deals, they get away with it, and we have to borrow more money to make up for what they just seem to be walking away with.”

At this point, Mrs Hanna-Martin was on her feet for clarification of such a sweeping statement.

“I think over the past week or so, we’ve been hearing from the Hon Member from East Grand Bahama; we’ve heard from the Honourable Members from Elizabeth and South Beach; we’ve heard from several others,” replied Mr Humes. “Instances where allegations of misappropriations and wastage . . . this is all I am saying, Mr Speaker. And I am saying that, in some ways, it appears as if people are just walking away. This isn’t new. This has been years. Before I came into government, I watched it. As a journalist at The Tribune, I covered it. So this isn’t some fantasy that I am making up. These are things that I know. I sort of investigated as a Tribune reporter the supposed missing moneys from the Housing Authority. So I’ve watched it too. So I do not want to get into it with the Member. I’m just saying that it appears as if some people are getting away, and that’s just the general perception in the community – speaking in many instances on behalf of my constituents as well – their perception.”

“I understand what the Member is saying in his history as a journalist,” replied Mrs Hanna-Martin. “He’s indicating that or using as his rationale a foundation of things that were said in here. I heard what was said in here, Mr Speaker. Nothing has been laid in this Parliament and lots have been said. But I heard that contracts were done before election. But I don’t think I heard anything in here that somebody stole, or misappropriated anything in this process. So I think the member should be (made to) withdraw that.”

Mr Humes knows exactly what he is talking about. One only has to read The Tribunes for the latter part of 2006 and early 2007 to know about at least one of the many scandals to which he refers. The Ministry of Housing was much in the news at the time.

Mr Humes was a reporter on our staff, having his eyes opened early to an underside of our body politic that many people never see from the inside. And much of which he learned could not be published. By the time he left us, he knew that all was not well in his country – what other law makers would be jailed for in more sophisticated societies, was being accepted here with an “oh, well” shrug of the shoulders as life moved on. It baffled and upset him that his country was so far behind in moral standards.

Mr Humes’ eyes were opened wide when one day a few disgruntled contractors came to The Tribune looking for justice. We knew that Mr Humes would do a thorough job and so we gave him the assignment. He asked many questions and kept digging. We were given financial statements that took us to the tip of the ice berg, just near enough to know that something was seriously wrong and the contractors, none of whom wanted to be identified, had a legitimate complaint. There was a rumour in the community that there was “skimming” off the top of each of these contracts. The documents that we had suggested that there was indeed skimming to the tune of about $5,000 on each contract — the very figure being talked about in the sip-sip on the streets.

Mrs Hanna-Martin wanted Mr Humes to withdraw his general statement about dishonesty. It was wise that she did not press her point with the Speaker, because Mr Humes still has the embarrassing facts with which he could support his claims — and The Tribune has its files.

It is understood that when former prime minister Hubert Ingraham won back the government he intended to have the matter reopened with prosecution to follow. However, the key witness suffered a stroke, and the case crumbled.

Mr Humes is a new member of the House, but he brings much to the table. The grandson of the late Audley Humes under whom he was trained he, like his grandfather, has always wanted what was best for The Bahamas. Audley Humes was a regular letter writer to The Tribune, always encouraging his people to pull themselves up and reach for the stars and urging government to do better by them. His grandson, who, unlike his grandfather, was given the opportunity to have a first class education is an assistant professor in the School of English Studies at the College of the Bahamas.

In an opening to an article written in The Tribune on July 16, 2007, Mr Humes had this to say:

“Even before I entered the field of journalism, I had my ideas. Never take anything at face value. Question everything. Just because someone says it is so, does not mean that it is so. If there are doubts, do the research. Ask for proof. Get the evidence to support the claim. And if there are still doubts, do some more research. Call it scepticism or pessimism, but the stance that I have adopted has served me well as a journalist covering political affairs in The Bahamas.

“For years, without established transparency laws, Bahamians have been asked to take the words of government officials at face value. Other than during the 1980s, I can never remember this being more evident in the Bahamas than in the last five years. (The years of the first Christie administration).

“Yet in most democratic countries around the world, credible governments make provisions for public investigations of elected officials, especially if it is believed that the elected official’s performance in the commission of his or her duty is questionable. And despite claims of innocence or ignorance, credible governments hold these public forums to protect their credibility.

“After government-sponsored investigations, three former French health officials were jailed for delaying the introduction of heat treatment for blood products. A Louisiana state congressman, William Jefferson, was indicted on wire fraud, racketeering, money laundering, and soliciting bribes, and the FBI found $90,000 stashed away in the congressmen’s freezer.

“A former chief-of-staff for the Vice President of the US was convicted and sentenced to 30 months in prison for lying and obstructing an investigation into the Bush administration’s activities. And in Japan, a scandal-tainted agriculture minister hanged himself an hour before he was to face questions over an alleged suspicious booking fraud.

“But unlike the countries in which these crackdowns took place, democracy in The Bahamas does not seem to have grown to the point where political crime is vetted in a manner by which taxpayers can decide whether or not to trust the words of the messenger. What we have in place now has become so demoralizing to the average citizen that most do not care one way or the other.”