The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE OPPOSITION’S leader yesterday asserted Parliament’s spending watchdog “will not comply” with what he branded as an attempt to obstruct its probe into how hundreds of millions of dollars were managed via the National Investment Fund (NIF).

Michael Pintard, who also chairs the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), hit back after Patricia Deveaux, the House of Assembly’s speaker, ruled that the Opposition-controlled committee cannot compel witnesses to appear before it unless this is first approved by a resolution passed by a majority of all MPs.

Signalling that this is akin to leaving a fox in charge of the hen house, the Marco City MP told Tribune Business that this would give the governing Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), and the Davis administration, an effective veto over the Committee’s ability to summons reluctant witnesses to testify and provide evidence before it.

Mr Pintard, warning this restriction will create a major roadblock in the way of the Committee’s current and future investigations, including its ongoing bid to compel Ryan Pinder KC, the former attorney general, to appear for the NIF probe, also hit out at what he viewed as the Speaker’s efforts to gag Parliament’s spending watchdog and prevent it from updating the Bahamian people on its work.

Ms Deveaux, in opening House of Assembly proceedings yesterday, said she was “advising” Mr Pintard - in his capacity as PAC chairman - “to refrain from making statements concerning the investigations presently being conducted by the Committee” until the final report on its findings is publicly disclosed through being laid in the House of Assembly.

However, she almost immediately appeared to back down from this position when challenged by Mr Pintard, stating that she wanted him to “update” herself and all MPs on the Committee’s work before speaking to the media. The Speaker argued that this would ensure “fairness” by giving MPs facing the PAC’s scrutiny the chance to reply to any findings, while also giving MPs the ability to make informed responses to media inquiries.

Mr Pintard, though, subsequently told Tribune Business it was “without question” that the Government is seeking to obstruct, and even close down, the Committee’s probe into how up to $965m of the Bahamian people’s money was deposited with, and spent through, accounts in the National Investment Fund’s name when that entity had yet to be set-up from a governance and operational perspective.

Pledging that the Committee, the only one on which the Opposition has a majority, will “prevail” despite the obstacles being placed in its path, he added that it will “seek to conclude as early as this week” its probe into whether Bahamian taxpayer monies were used to aid the PLP’s 2026 general election by purchasing $1.5m worth of building vouchers.

He added that the PAC aims “to lay at least one report” - whether into the vouchers or NIF - when the House of Assembly reconvenes on November 25, with both investigations completed and the findings publicly released before Parliament breaks for Christmas.

However, Wayne Munroe KC, the attorney general, responded by telling Tribune Business that it appeared the Free National Movement (FNM) “have no idea about governance”. He signalled that further summonses to Mr Pinder will receive the same treatment as before, with the former attorney general not appearing due to concerns that the PAC’s questions are asking him to violate both the Cabinet oath of confidentiality and legal attorney-client privilege.

The attorney general also asserted that the Committee appears to be treating the legal advice provided by his office to the Ministry of Finance, which the latter has used to justify its handling and management of the NIF, as akin to “the voice of God”. Mr Munroe argued that, instead of focusing on this advice, the Committee should be concentrating on “getting the primary facts” over how the Fund’s millions were managed as this would reveal any wrongdoing.

And, reiterating that “no one backed up a dump truck and took away $300m”, he added that nothing presented to him during testimony before the Committee suggested there was “a violation” in how the National Investment Fund has been administered since summer 2025.

The latest controversy over transparency and accountability involving government spending erupted after Ms Deveaux ruled on “two concerns” voiced by Kingsley Smith, the west Grand Bahama MP and one of the PLP’s two-strong PAC minority, over how the PAC was conducting its work.

“The first concern was about procedure,” the House speaker said. “In answer to that concern, I would simply say that having regard to the Powers and Privileges (Senate and House of Assembly) Act, the PAC will need a resolution from the House of Assembly in order to issue a summons to compel the attendance of the witnesses.

“The member from West Grand Bahama, his other concern was about the way the chairman of the Committee [Mr Pintard] was conducting the business of the PAC. He specifically objected to the chairman’s utterances in the press about the business of the Committee.” Ms Deveaux, setting out what she described as “the procedure”, said the Committee should do its investigation and then report to the House of Assembly.

“It is not advisable to anticipate what is going to happen and report such anticipation of the process, especially before it arises in this honourable assembly,” she added. “It is not fair to the other members of the Committee for any one member to report to the press his or her views on what is to happen in the Committee.

“I am advising the chair of the Public Accounts Committee to refrain from making statements concerning the investigation presently being conducted by the Committee until the Committee has made it’s formal report on the findings.” Ms Deveaux also reiterated that the Committee’s hearings and proceedings are conducted privately out of the public spotlight.

Mr Pintard responded instantly, arguing that he has not disclosed any evidence presented before the PAC, only given updates on its progress and witnesses that have appeared before it.

And he pledged to “continue to petition” to have the Committee’s hearings take place in public, as happens in many countries with the same Westminster government system, where proceedings are often televised life. This, though, has been rejected by Ms Deveaux, who yesterday gave no sign of changing her position on the issue.

Mr Pintard, speaking later to Tribune Business, accused Ms Deveaux of “aiding and abetting the Prime Minister” and “collaborating in trying to stifle the work of the PAC”. He added that the Committee has “a lot more information that people would consider salacious that we have not put into the public domain”, and accused the Government of “looking for excuses” to explain why it is not fully co-operating with the Committee.

Noting that this had been promised by Michael Halkitis, minister of finance, when he addressed the House of Assembly on the NIF in September, the Opposition leader also argued that the Committee “work for the public; we don’t work for the Speaker” and it has no obligation to update her on its work personally.

And, revealing that Mr Pinder has declined to appear before the Committee following three previous requests, Mr Pintard said of the speaker’s finding that a resolution is needed from the full House before the PAC can issue a summons: “It’s taking the business of the PAC, and its attempts to get witnesses and documents, and giving it to a Parliament under the charge of the PLP, who have the majority and are able to stop anyone the PAC wishes to summons from coming.

“We will not comply with what she [Ms Deveaux] had to say. We don’t accept that she’s right on the law. We will continue as early as this week to seek to conclude the work on the voucher programme and continue to come close to a conclusion with the work on the NIF, so that when the House reconvenes on November 25 we are in a position to lay at least one of the reports, and we want to lay both of them before we break for the Christmas holidays.

“We will not comply with something we believe is unlawful and politically driven,” Mr Pintard added. “We are going to continue with the investigations as we have been. We will not pivot based on what she has to say, save and except at the very next sitting we will update the public but do from the House of Assembly.’

“We are going to challenge any unlawful act they take, and we believe we will prevail. We don’t believe that, in the final analysis, they will be successful. We will oppose the moves they are trying to do.” The Opposition leader added that the PAC’s goal is to given the Bahamian people “a complete understanding of how their money was moved and spent” through the NIF.

He said Mr Pinder is a key witness when it comes to the legal advice that the Ministry of Finance used to justify its management of the National Investment Fund. But Mr Munroe, his successor as attorney general, said the Opposition’s obsession with that advice is distracting from what it should be really focusing on - the actions that this underpinned.

“They are elevating the advice of the Attorney General to the voice of God,” he told Tribune Business. “If I was running the PAC, I’d be getting primary facts. You would ask the Central Bank governor how this money was moved. I suspect the Governor told them the money was moved legally; no one backed up a dump truck and took away $300m.

“Once you have the facts, then they can get advice as to whether it was legal or not… It’s clear to them that, in our view, it was legal. If they have a contrary view, the forum in which you work out whether it was correct or not is not the House or the press; it’s the court.”

Mr Munroe said the “presumption of regularity” always applies, meaning that any action by a public official is deemed valid or authorised unless proven otherwise. He added that the PAC has yet to show this was breached.

“Nothing in all the facts would point to anything that says there was a violation,” he said, “and they didn’t draw anything to my attention. They [the Opposition] don’t seem to have a grasps of governance and I doubt they are receiving advice from sensible lawyers.”

Mr Munroe suggested that the Opposition are seizing on issues such as the NIF and voucher programme in an effort to score political points. “If you have nothing else to do - the economy’s doing well, things are going well - if this is the best they have, I tell my colleagues: ‘Look at what they are coming with’ and, if it’s facile, there’s nothing to be concerned about.

“If there is something of substance, we do take it into account and we address any matters of real concern.”

Total public and taxpayer money placed into the NIF could be as high as $965m. Besides the $700m in borrowing proceeds from the 2025-2026 fiscal year, which Mr Halkitis said were deposited into it, the Davis administration had also previously placed the $265.5m net proceeds from the $1.067bn bond into the Fund during the prior fiscal period.

Tribune Business revelations that most of that $265.5m had been removed from the Fund, leaving just a balance of $200,000 at end-March 2026, sparked the increased scrutiny that ultimately led to Mr Rolle’s disclosures about the Board not being convened, and the governance and operational consequences of this.