PRIME Minister Philip “Brave” Davis.
By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS
Tribune Staff Reporter
lmunnings@tribunemedia.net
TENSIONS between the Grand Bahama Port Authority and the Davis administration continue to brew as the deadline for the former to pay the government $357m or face arbitration proceedings nears, with Prime Minister Philip “Brave” Davis saying the promises of Grand Bahama will remain unfulfilled without a paradigm shift.
The 30-day deadline concerning the Davis administration’s demand that the GBPA pay money allegedly owed to the government over the past five years ends on Thursday.
Mr Davis told reporters on Thursday that lawyers on both ends will meet soon to discuss the future.
As some criticise the timing of his administration’s tactics, Mr Davis said there would be no better time to force the GBPA to live up to its Hawksbill Creek Agreement obligations.
“Who holds time?” he said. “Who is to determine when is the best time?”
“What I do know is the state of our country is such that the Bahamian people can no longer afford to subsidise the port authority.
“As I have said before, the government is doing what the Port Authority ought to be doing by the arrangements that were entered into in the Hawskbill Agreement, and if they are doing it, then what is the role of the Port Authority?
“And what we are saying, is that it is time for us to sit down, and everyone has agreed that the promise of Grand Bahama has not been fulfilled and that promise is continuing to depreciate and any hope of it ever reaching its potential is perhaps now almost non-existent under the present structure, under the present ownership, and going forth there has to be a paradigm shift and that is where my thinking is.”
Mr Davis said the Bahamian people will not bear the burden of the feud.
“Right now, the Bahamian people are paying for services in Grand Bahama in the Port for which the Port should be paying.” he said. “Should we continue that? That’s the question you ought to ask themselves.”
The GBPA has said the government’s payment demand is ill-founded, arguing that Freeport’s $200m annual tax revenues far exceed the government’s investments in the city.
Some, including former Free National Movement (FNM) Pineridge MP Frederick McAlpine, have argued that if the GBPA is forced to pay the government, the burden will fall on Freeport residents through increased fees.
Comments
Sickened 1 week, 4 days ago
Dear PM if you want us to argue in your favor then you must provide support. Don't blabber about a certain number without any backup as it sounds outrageous. You haven't even provided any sort of reasonable rationale behind the number. No offense but.... grow up!
TalRussell 1 week, 4 days ago
The premiership is not communicating as he needs to be over his government's true intent towards the future of the GBPA. --- Whilst at it. --- Please release as to --- "Whatever came of the government's 7 1/2% share ownership in the GBPA?" --- Either cash from the sale of the shares, or the actual share certificates, should be lodged at the Popoulaces'Purse. --- Good Day!
ExposedU2C 1 week, 4 days ago
Word on the street has it that the terms of the contract government signed with the PWC firm to prepare the report prevents the report from being made public without the consent of PWC even though it was paid for by the taxpayers. That aside, the GBPA should certainly have the right to know what information was provided to PWC by the government in order to ascertain the legal validity and correctness of the extortionist sum of $357 million the government claims is due from the GBPA. Many in the legal community suspect the PWC report is so heavily qualified and caveated as to the accuracy of the $357 million that the government would find releasing its contents to the public, or even the GBPA, to be most embarrassing.
sheeprunner12 1 week, 4 days ago
The PM wants the Bahamian people to support his view without making available to the people the very same PwC document that he purports is the evidence.
There is NO way that Bahamians can believe a man who has lied so much in Parliament.
John 1 week, 4 days ago
Well tge understanding from other quarters is that the GBPA never disputed the claim. Their defense was that government never demanded the funds before. Well time for the free picnic to end. And if government paid an accounting agency to prepare the claim it would be senseless for the GBPA not to have been presented with a copy.
ExposedU2C 1 week, 4 days ago
The invoice(s) and/or claim letter(s) government submitted to GBPA and the PWC firm's detailed report are not one and the same. Yet Davis is apparently content to have the public believe otherwise.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID