NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Attorney General Ryan Pinder criticized the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) for inaccuracies and misrepresentations in its response to Prime Minister Philip Davis’ recent statements, arguing that the government’s pursuit of reimbursable expenses was not a new idea.
During budget debate contribution in the Senate, Pinder pointed out that in 2015, under Prime Minister Christie, a Hawksbill Review Committee was established to review matters related to the obligations under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA), including the applicability of section 1(5) reimbursements.
“First of all, it should be clarified that any claim by the government is based on section 1(5) of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement. This section has never been amended and remains in force and binding. Section 1(5) of the HCA states that the GBPA should reimburse the government for costs incurred for certain activities and services, exceeding customs duties and emergency taxes collected. However, the GBPA has not responded to any of our requests for reimbursement regarding these expenses. The first time we heard about their objection to the amounts we are seeking was in their press release,” said Pinder.
“Furthermore, their claim that no government has ever pursued these amounts is completely false. The GBPA should remember that in 2015, under Prime Minister Christie, a Hawksbill Review Committee was formed to review matters related to the obligations under the HCA, including the applicability of section 1(5) reimbursements. The HCA Review Committee, under the former PLP Government, even commissioned their own independent financial review of the amounts owed. At that time, the GBPA also resisted the pursuit and calculation.”
According to Pinder, this led to the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2016 between the government and the GBPA, which provided certain governance concessions and committed to addressing all the government’s concerns regarding Section 1(5).
He noted that discussions on the section 1(5) claims continued after the MOU was signed, but shortly thereafter, the PLP lost the general election, resulting in a change of government. According to Pinder, the previous FNM administration abandoned the work of the former government on this issue and even attempted to reverse everything that the government had done in favor of the GBPA shareholders.
“As you can see, the issue of Section 1(5) is not a new one. The Christie Administration believed that the government was entitled to reimbursement for costs under Section 1(5), and the Brave Davis Administration shares the same belief. You would have to ask other administrations why they felt it unnecessary to pursue the rights of the government and the Bahamian people that were clearly outlined in the law and the HCA contract,” said Pinder.
He noted that the government had engaged an internationally recognized and respected accounting firm to calculate the expenses it believes it is entitled to.
“The method of calculation of the expenses has been provided to the GBPA, with no response. We understand that they might disagree with the calculations, and that is fine. The method for such dispute, however, is not in the public domain with misconceived press releases, but through adequate methods of dispute resolution found in the HCA,” said Pinder.
Earlier this week, the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) responded to Prime Minister Philip Davis’ statements, suggesting that increased government bureaucracy and red tape, in violation of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA), have hindered Freeport’s progress.
During his concluding remarks in the budget debate on Monday, Prime Minister Philip Davis claimed that the GBPA needed a “management and governance change” to achieve real growth and opportunities in Grand Bahama.
