The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE GOVERNMENT appears to have moved more than $265m out of the National Investment Fund (NIF) without explaining why, or what the funds were used for, with the Opposition charging that “Parliament's safeguards” are being rendered “meaningless”.

Kwasi Thompson, the Free National Movement’s (FNM) finance spokesman, hit out after the Davis administration’s own fiscal data revealed that the National Investment Fund (NIF) has been drawn down from $265.3m at year-end 2025 to leave just a $200,000 balance remaining at end-March 2026.

The Government’s nine-month, or third quarter report for the 2025-2026 fiscal year, provided no analysis, rationale or road map to show where this $265.1m went or what it was used for. The report merely said: “The balance for the National Investment Fund as of end-March 2026 stood at $0.2m.” In contrast, the six-month report covering the period to end-December 2025, asserted: “The balance for the National Investment Fund as of July [sic, December] 2025 stood at $265.3m.”

The Davis administration, in a statement responding to Tribune Business inquiries that was sent by Senator Latrae Rahming, communications chief in the Prime Minister’s Office, gave no direct explanation or rationale for why just a $200,000 balance had been left in the National Investment Fund at end-March 2026.

It hinted, but did not confirm, that at least a portion of the $265m has been used to finance the much-touted Family Island airport upgrades, and called for questions over the funds’ movement and use, plus the National Investment Fund’s governance, to “wait” on a report by the Fund itself. No timeline was given for when such a report will be forthcoming.

“The primary use of the National Investment Fund was to support the Government’s airport infrastructure programme, which has been publicly announced,” the Government told this newspaper.

“With respect to the additional matters you raised regarding the movement of funds, as well as the constitution and governance arrangements of the National Investment Fund, it would be best to await the Fund’s report, which will provide the appropriate details.”

However, Mr Thompson, the east Grand Bahama MP, countered that this is unlikely to satisfy Bahamians who will likely question how the Government could simply move the $265.1m “without putting in the protections” mandated by the National Investment Fund Act that was passed by Parliament in 2022 under the first Davis administration.

“They have removed the money and not disclosed where it went to,” the Opposition finance spokesman told Tribune Business. “What is important is the governance structure of the National Investment Fund. Parliament approved the National Investment Fund to have a particular governance structure. It was never intended to be just another government account.

“It was intended to have independent governance, to have a high degree of transparency, to have a high degree of financial expertise. The minister of finance must also provide the National Investment Fund with its mandate. All of these things are in the Act, and none of these things have been publicly disclosed.

“The difficulty, I believe, that the public will have is how you can move $264m-plus from the National Investment Fund without putting in the protections that ought to have been implemented.”

Mr Thompson, in a statement also sent to this newspaper, added: “When Parliament created the National Investment Fund, it was not simply protecting public money; it was protecting the public's trust. Today, the question is whether those protections were ever put into effect….

“Parliament established a governance framework based on internationally-recognised sovereign wealth fund principles, including the Santiago Principles, requiring independent oversight, professional investment management, transparency and accountability through a Board of Governors, an investment committee, published investment and policy mandates, statutory reporting, independent audits and a public website. Where are they?”

The east Grand Bahama MP added: “The Government's own reports show that $265.3m, was transferred into the National Investment Fund. By the end of March 2026, almost all of it had been removed with no announcement and no explanation, with only $200,000 left in the Fund. Where did the money go?

“The published reports disclose the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars, but they do not disclose the governance behind those decisions. There is no public disclosure of the Board of Governors, the investment committee, the investment mandate, the policy mandate or the official website contemplated by the Act. If these safeguards have been implemented, the Government should demonstrate it.

“The greatest danger is not the movement of hundreds of millions of dollars. The greatest danger is allowing Parliament's safeguards to become meaningless,” Mr Thompson added. “If laws creating independent governance, transparency and accountability can simply exist on paper while the public is left without answers, then we are eroding one of the fundamental principles of democratic government - that those entrusted with public resources must themselves be accountable to the people.

“The National Investment Fund was created to ensure that decisions involving hundreds of millions of dollars would never depend on blind trust. Parliament required independent oversight, collective decision-making and public accountability. If those safeguards have not been visibly implemented, then the very purpose of the Act is at risk of being defeated.”

The original $265.3m injection into the National Investment Fund was also previously seized upon by the opposition Free National Movement (FNM), which argued that this circumvented the provisions of the Public Debt Management Act by directing borrowing proceeds away from first being deposited into the Government’s ‘consolidated’ fund as required by the law.

The $265.3m represented the majority of the surplus $300m generated by the Government’s $1.067bn external foreign currency bond issue in 2025. It said these were being placed into the National Investment Fund to help finance critical infrastructure projects.

With the first $767m generated by the bond used to rollover, or refinance, existing debt, the Opposition said it had no problem with using the excess $300m as the Government plans to do via the National Investment Fund. Rather, its objections lay with the mechanism the Government using because it believed it must first, under the constitution and statute law, place all borrowing proceeds in the ‘consolidated fund’ and then obtain Parliament’s permission for how they are used.

Mr Thompson said at the time: “Any government spending ought to be approved by Parliament. The way government spending is appropriated by Parliament is through the Budget process. The Government has to get parliamentary approval to borrow funds and to spend funds

“The law obligates the Government to come to Parliament to get approval to spend government monies. If the Government wants $300m to invest in the National Investment Fund, which we have no difficulty with, it must be approved by Parliament. And to be approved by Parliament it must be in the Budget.”

The Government also treated the treating the National Investment Fund’s $265.3m as “equity” even though it seemingly represented the proceeds of borrowing given that a bond is a debt security, or IOU, obligating the issuer to repay investors interest and principal.

This was viewed by the Opposition as a further device to keep the borrowing proceeds off the Government’s balance sheet and from adding to the ever-increasing national debt. This accounting treatment also ensured it did not impact what would be a projected first-ever Budget surplus for the 2025-2026 fiscal year of $75.5m.