NASSAU, BAHAMAS- The Opposition is seeking “full transparency and legal clarity” from the Government over a reported $43.1 million “crystallized” liability and the transfer of an estimated $700 million in excess borrowings to the National Investment Fund (NIF), arguing that both matters raise significant questions about compliance with the country’s public finance laws.
Opposition Leader Michael Pintard, in two letters dated June 1, 2026, to Finance Minister Michael Halkitis, requested extensive documentation and clarification on disclosures contained in the FY2026/2027 Budget and Fiscal Strategy Report.
In the first letter, Mr Pintard questioned a Fiscal Strategy Report disclosure stating that: “The Government faces a potential contingent liability of $140 million… approximately $43.1 million of this liability has crystallized.”
At the same time, he noted that the FY2026/2027 Budget provides for “interest payments of $316,000” and “principal repayments of $1.67 million” to the African Export-Import Bank.
Mr Pintard argued that the disclosures raise “fundamental legal and fiscal questions” that go directly to compliance with the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) and the Public Debt Management Act (PDMA).
“The Opposition therefore requests that the Government clearly identify the loan agreement, if any, with the African Export-Import Bank; the resolution of Parliament, if any, authorizing a guarantee; and the legal instrument giving rise to both the $140 million exposure and the $43.1 million crystallized amount,” Mr Pintard wrote.
The Opposition also questioned the meaning and legal basis of the term “crystallized”, arguing that while it has no defined meaning under either the PFMA or PDMA, its use “necessarily implies that a previously contingent exposure has become a fixed and enforceable obligation against the Government.”
Mr Pintard said the Government must clarify whether the liability represents “a lawfully executed sovereign loan; a formally approved Government guarantee which has been called; or a contractual PPP liability” that has been appropriated and is being paid through the Budget.
The Opposition also requested copies of all loan agreements with the African Export-Import Bank, all parliamentary resolutions approving related borrowing or guarantees, PPP contracts involving Bahamas Striping and Cat Island Infrastructure Company Limited, and the legal basis for recognition of the $43.1 million as a Government liability.
In a separate letter, Mr Pintard sought clarification regarding what he described as approximately $700 million in excess borrowings that were reportedly transferred to the National Investment Fund rather than applied to deficit financing.
“We request full documentary clarification” of the borrowing approvals and the legal authority under which the excess funds were transferred from the Consolidated Fund to the NIF, Mr Pintard wrote.
The Opposition requested details on the total amount of cash transferred into NIF accounts, amounts recorded in NIF ledgers, cash disbursements, expenditures and a reconciliation explaining any differences between cash and accounting balances.
Mr Pintard also called for a comprehensive list of projects funded or approved for funding through the NIF, including allocations, expenditures, procurement status and implementing agencies.
The Opposition expressed concern that it could find no information related to the NIF’s board structure.
“As such if either the Board doesn’t exist or if its composition is hidden from the public, there is no defensible means for any public funds to be moved to or through any NIF structure,” Mr Pintard wrote.
The letter also sought confirmation on whether a custodian bank agreement has been executed, whether an investment mandate or policy framework has been approved, and whether regulations governing the NIF’s operations have been brought into force.
Mr Pintard further argued that the Government’s handling of the NIF raises “serious concerns of non-compliance” with the Santiago Principles, which establish standards for transparency, legal clarity and independent governance.
Concluding both letters, the Opposition called on the Government to provide “full transparency and legal clarity on this matter without delay”, arguing that comprehensive answers are necessary to allow it to speak accurately on fiscal matters and address public concerns regarding the stewardship of public funds.
