The Tribune

By EARYEL BOWLEG


Tribune Staff Reporter


ebowleg@tribunemedia.net

OPPOSITION leader Michael Pintard yesterday demanded an accounting of more than $400m of roughly $700m the government said it transferred to the National Investment Fund, saying Finance Minister Michael Halkitis explained only about $310.9m in spending when he addressed Parliament.

Mr Pintard also announced that the Public Accounts Committee has agreed to investigate the NIF, with the Treasurer expected to be called as early as next week.

His comments came after Mr Halkitis told Parliament that $310.9m in NIF proceeds had been used for public infrastructure — $210.6m on buildings and roads and another $100.3m on aviation infrastructure.

But Mr Pintard said that left a substantial portion of the roughly $700m previously identified by the government as excess borrowing receipts transferred to the fund unaccounted for in the minister’s presentation.

“The other thing that the minister totally missed,” he said, “he never commented on more than $400 million of the $700 million that was supposedly transferred into the fund. He concentrated on roughly around $310 million.”

Mr Pintard called on the government to provide a full breakdown of the money and identify the account in which it is held.

“Rather than be distracted I believe by the minister speaking about all of the projects that they are working on,” he said, “we want to first start this discussion with where is the money? Account for the 700 million. Which account is it on?”

The controversy has intensified after Central Bank Governor John Rolle confirmed that the NIF’s Board of Governors had never formally convened, despite an account bearing the fund’s name being maintained at the Central Bank.

The National Investment Funds Act provides for a Board of Governors to oversee a fund and assigns it responsibilities for its management and governance. Mr Halkitis told Parliament that, before the NIF’s governance arrangements became fully operational, the Ministry of Finance administered the money through the ministry and Treasury under the Public Finance Management Act. He said the government sought advice from the Office of the Attorney General on how that Act, the National Investment Funds Act and Parliament’s borrowing authority interacted.

Mr Pintard rejected that explanation and accused the government of operating outside the framework established by the NIF legislation.

“His legal basis for moving millions of dollars out of the National Investment Fund was not the National Investment Act,” he said. “They did not follow the law.”

He argued that money was instead held by the Ministry of Finance without the oversight contemplated under the NIF structure.

Mr Halkitis has maintained that Parliament authorised the government in March 2025 to borrow up to $300m and deposit the proceeds into the NIF for infrastructure and national development.

He also said the NIF’s Board of Directors was appointed with effect from June 30, 2025, although the government has acknowledged that aspects of the fund’s governance arrangements remain unfinished.

Mr Pintard said that explanation raised another question: whether the money was actually being administered through the NIF established by law or through a separate Ministry of Finance account.

He said the government had transferred public money before the board was meeting and before an investment committee and other governance mechanisms were in place.

Mr Pintard said that left, in his view, two possibilities: either NIF resources were not administered in accordance with the legislation or the Ministry of Finance handled the money outside the NIF structure.

He said the second possibility would raise further questions about how those transactions were reflected in the government’s fiscal accounts.

The FNM leader said Mr Halkitis’ statement had therefore deepened rather than resolved the opposition’s concerns.

“We support all of those items he mentioned,” he said of the infrastructure projects. “What we do not believe is that he’s giving a proper explanation on where the money came from and by what rules did he apply those money to those projects.”

The Public Accounts Committee will now pursue its own examination of the fund.

Mr Pintard said the opposition was using several avenues to obtain answers, including the PAC and possible court action.

“We will go to court at the appropriate time once we are armed with the right advice,” he said.

He also dismissed suggestions that the opposition should have pressed the government more extensively for answers during the parliamentary sitting, saying the PAC investigation would provide another mechanism to scrutinise the transactions.

Mr Halkitis has said the government will cooperate fully with the committee.