NASSAU, BAHAMAS — Prime Minister Philip Davis says settlement agreements are being kept confidential because they concern sensitive matters that may relate to ongoing or potential lawsuits.
The Office of the Attorney General has entered confidential settlement agreements in the last year with Financial Secretary Simon Wilson, Commissioner of Police Clayton Fernander and Deputy Commissioner Leamond Deleveaux. An impending agreement with former Bahamas Power & Light chair Darnell Osborne and other former board members is expected to be confidential as well.
Critics, including Free National Movement leader Michael Pintard, have said the public deserves to know how monies are spent, especially when awarded to people with public jobs.
In his first public comments on the matters, Davis told reporters yesterday: “What we have to appreciate is that there are matters that the government is going to engage in that are sufficiently sensitive that will not be made public, particularly at this time.
“There are a number of issues that brought on suits against the government because of the conduct of the previous administration. If we are going to move to resolve those other matters, to expose settlements in any form or fashion will settle the ability to settle others.
“That’s why at this time we don’t intend to disclose those matters but in time the records are clear that there is a means to get that information in due course and it will be. It is just not at this time being made known.”
Lawyers for Wilson, Fernander and Deleveaux have said non-disclosure clauses are included in the agreements for their clients, raising the question of how the awards will ever be publicly disclosed.
Confidentiality clauses have been a feature of many agreements over the years and there is no history of them ever being publicized.
In July, Pintard said it would serve the public’s interest better if the awards are made public.
He said: “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.”
Loading ...
