NASSAU, BAHAMAS— Prime Minister Philip Davis KC declared Monday night that the government’s legal battle with the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) was never personal, but about changing the trajectory of Grand Bahama, as he defended the administration’s decision to pursue arbitration under the historic Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA)
“I don’t pick fights, but I ain’t afraid of none,” Davis told residents during a town hall meeting on Grand Bahama Monday night. “This is not personal. This is about Grand Bahama, its people, and the direction needs to change.”
The prime minister’s remarks came as the government continues to explain the implications of the recent arbitration ruling involving the Port Authority and the historic Hawksbill Creek Agreement, a dispute that has sparked widespread debate about governance and development in Freeport.
Davis said the ruling confirms that the government has the right to pursue reimbursement for administrative expenses tied to services provided in the Port area and rejects the Port Authority’s claim that it had no financial obligations to the state.
“They were saying they had no liability,” Davis said, referring to the Port Authority’s position during arbitration proceedings. “They rejected the claim. They had no liability. They owe the government nothing. We are not entitled to reimbursement.”
“But the result was the tribunal has held — yes, there is liability,” he said.
The government initially sought approximately $357 million in reimbursement for administrative costs accumulated over several years within the Freeport area. While the arbitration tribunal did not immediately award that full amount, Davis said the panel confirmed that the government has a continuing right to seek reimbursement through a review mechanism established under a 1994 agreement between the parties.
Under that framework, the government and the Port Authority are expected to attempt negotiations to determine the amount owed.
“They also said under that agreement you may have another approach and go back and decide what that could be,” Davis explained. “And if you can’t agree, you can come back to us and we will settle it for you.”
According to Davis, the ruling also allows the government to pursue administrative cost recovery potentially until 2054, when the Hawksbill Creek Agreement expires.
The prime minister stressed that the arbitration case was never solely about the monetary value of the claim but about establishing whether the Port Authority had any financial responsibility to the government.
“The claim was about $357 million,” Davis said. “But the important thing is the liability.”
Another major outcome of the arbitration, he noted, was the dismissal of the Port Authority’s counterclaims against the government.
According to Davis, the Port Authority had filed claims totalling roughly $1 billion, alleging that the government had breached provisions of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.
“They were suing us for $1 billion,” he said.
However, the arbitration tribunal rejected nearly all of those claims.
“All of the claims were dismissed,” Davis said.
He acknowledged that the tribunal identified one limited breach by the government but said the panel indicated that determining damages would be difficult.
“We accept what they said,” Davis added. “We’re not running from that.”
During the forum, legal experts also offered their interpretation of the ruling and its implications for the future of Freeport.
Veteran attorney Greg Moss said the tribunal’s findings provide clarity on the government’s sovereign authority over the city.
“The fact that we now have an arbitration tribunal that clarifies that the government has sovereign rights — undisputed sovereign rights — over the city of Freeport, I think is something to celebrate,” Moss said.
At the same time, he cautioned against framing the ruling simply as a victory for either side.
Moss also reflected on the island’s long economic stagnation, arguing that Freeport’s development momentum stalled decades ago.
“The status quo with the Port Authority — a positive Port Authority died with Edward St. George,” Moss said, referencing the late Port Authority executive Edward St. George. “We’ve been stuck in a spot of inertia for decades now.”
Veteran attorney Terrence Gape offered even sharper criticism of the Port Authority’s leadership over the years, blaming poor planning and lack of vision for the island’s prolonged economic struggles.
“At least last summer we were fast approaching bankruptcy of Freeport city and all of us,” Gape said.
“That has changed because the prime minister has taken a very active role supporting Freeport and driving investment to Freeport which no one else was doing for many years.”
Gape argued that the arbitration ruling ultimately reinforces the principle that the Bahamian government retains sovereign authority over the island.
“The important thing about the arbitration ruling to me is that it left no doubt that the sovereignty of Grand Bahama rests in the government,” he said.
Prime Minister Davis acknowledged that the HCA played a major role in transforming Freeport into a thriving industrial hub during its early years but said its structure has become increasingly problematic over time.
“When this 1955 agreement was signed, it gave about 150,000 acres of land and sweeping tax concessions,” Davis said.
“In return for that, the port had obligations to build infrastructure, to attract investment and provide services to develop the economy.”
While those goals were achieved for a time, Davis said the island’s development eventually slowed.
“Somewhere along the line, there may have been loss,” he said.
Despite the legal complexities surrounding the arbitration decision, Davis told residents the government remains focused on rebuilding Grand Bahama’s economic momentum.
“This is a new day,” he said.
“The way forward is yet to be determined, but it will be determined with the people of Grand Bahama as we chart a new path for this island.”
