NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Free National Movement Leader Michael Pintard continued his criticism of confidential settlement agreements yesterday, saying the government is doing a disservice to the public by not being transparent about settlement awards.
In the last year the Office of the Attorney General has entered confidential agreements with Financial Secretary Simon Wilson, Police Commissioner Clayton Fernander and Deputy Commissioner Leamond Deleveaux over lawsuits they brought under the Minnis administration.
Eyewitness News reported last week that the AG’s office has also reached a settlement in principle with former Bahamas Power & Light Chairwoman Darnell Osborne and three other former BPL board directors who they sued the government. Their lawyer, Damian Gomez, QC, suggested he will push for their settlement award to be kept confidential as well.
Speaking at a Rotary Club of East Nassau luncheon yesterday, Pintard said confidential agreements are inconsistent with the spirit of the long-promised Freedom of Information Act.
He said: “Now I’m not suggesting that every outstanding matter should be allowed to go through the court. Sometimes as a government, you have a moral imperative because the facts are so clear and you believe the previous administration was so brazen in its politics that you decide this is something that ought to be settled.
“That’s fine, but at least explain that to the public so we can understand the rationale. And when you decide to settle it, it cannot be right and again, I’ve not sat in the chair so there may be some extenuating circumstances that I discover in four years, but from what I’ve seen up to this point, there’s no justification under the FNM when there were matters that were settled privately with public servants and there’s no justification now.”
Pintard continued: “I’ve not heard, I wouldn’t rule it out entirely, but I’ve not heard a compelling reason why a settlement would be private.
“Because if that person is holding a sensitive position and you appoint them and the amount that you normally give to somebody who is facing the grievance that they have with the former administration, if that amount far exceeds any similar settlement in that jurisdiction or similar jurisdiction, then the public is left to speculate on whether or not this is a just settlement or this is payment for future services.”
He said: “And you don’t want to put men and women of integrity in that kind of position where questions are being asked about their future functions because you refuse to disclose what is not your private business but our collective business. That’s one example of something I believe the Freedom of Information should tackle.
“Now the government is duty bound to explain is this in some special, sensitive area that creates tremendous problems for them if they reveal it that the Freedom of Information Act will carve out a special category where that does not apply,” Pintard said.
