The Tribune

By FAY SIMMONS

Tribune Business Reporter

jsimmons@tribunemedia.net

The Minister of Finance and Opposition’s leader yesterday clashed in the House of Assembly over the National Investment Fund (NIF) with the latter pressing for answers over how hundreds of millions of dollars in borrowings and development financing will be managed and overseen.

The exchange came during Michael Halkitis' wrap-up of the 2026-2027 Budget debate as he sought to rebut concerns raised earlier by the Opposition over the legal structure and governance arrangements surrounding the fund.

The National Investment Fund was established by the Davis administration as a vehicle intended to finance major national development projects and support investments pursued through public-private partnerships (PPPs), and Mr Halkitis argued that Parliament had already approved the framework through a borrowing resolution passed last year.

"Last year this House approved a specific borrowing resolution which authorised the Government to raise funds from the international markets for national development purposes, including infrastructure," he said. Reading from the resolution, the finance minister noted that it also approved the deposit of borrowed funds into the National Investment Fund.

However, Michael Pintard challenged that interpretation, arguing that while Parliament authorised borrowing, it did not authorise the transfer of funds from the Government’s consolidated fund into the National Investment Fund.

"The borrowing resolution permits the gGovernment to borrow the funds," said Mr Pintard. "The funds are then deposited in the consolidated fund, but that resolution itself does not authorise the Government to transfer those funds to the National Investment Fund."

The Opposition leader argued that Article 130 of the Constitution requires explicit parliamentary authorisation through an appropriation Act before public funds can be withdrawn from the consolidated fund and redirected elsewhere.

Mr Pintard also questioned whether the governance structure for the fund has been properly established. "We still have not heard about the establishment of any Board," he said. "The persons have not been identified, certainly not publicly."

Mr Halkitis acknowledged that the Board has not yet been finalised. "The composition of the Board has not yet been finalised. That is being finalised," he told Parliament.

The exchange intensified when Mr Pintard suggested that the absence of a Board raised concerns about the fund's operational readiness and oversight mechanisms.

"For all intents and purposes, they could just put it in anybody's account because that is not an entity that has been appropriately set up," he said.

The National Investment Fund has emerged as one of the most contentious elements of the Government's strategy for financing major development projects.

The Davis administration has argued that the fund will provide a mechanism for mobilising capital and supporting long-term national investments, particularly through infrastructure and public-private partnership (PPP) initiatives.

The Opposition, however, has repeatedly questioned the governance framework, parliamentary oversight and legal authority underpinning the vehicle.

Earlier this month, Mr Pintard called for greater transparency surrounding approximately $700m in borrowing and contingent liabilities linked to government development initiatives, arguing that Parliament and the public require a clearer understanding of how the funds will be managed and what obligations taxpayers could ultimately face.

During yesterday's exchange, he renewed those concerns, maintaining that questions surrounding the legal authority to transfer funds into the NIF and the absence of a publicly identified board remain unresolved.

Mr Halkitis rejected suggestions that the Government had acted improperly, insisting that the borrowing resolution approved by Parliament provided the authority required to proceed and noting that work to finalise the fund's governance arrangements remains ongoing.