Dear Editor,
There should be no debate about whether Dr. Hubert Minnis deserves the opportunity to be nominated and run as a Free National Movement (FNM) candidate in the upcoming general election. For those new to politics who may not fully grasp the situation, it’s important to understand that Minnis, like previous FNM leaders, faced internal opposition during his time as leader. This is not unique to him—leaders such as the late Cecil Wallace-Whitfield and Hubert Ingraham also experienced factional struggles within the party.
Yet, despite the challenges, Minnis has demonstrated political maturity. He did not seek retribution against those who actively worked against the FNM’s victory in 2017, even when he faced public criticism and direct attempts to undermine his leadership. Instead of retaliating, he remains open to working with former adversaries in a future FNM administration.
On the other hand, current FNM Chairman Duane Sands has long been a figure of contention. Many questioned his political future after 2012, and perhaps for good reason.
Elizabeth Got It Right About Sands
The voters of Elizabeth saw something many others overlooked: Sands is not a team player and cannot be trusted. He has leaned heavily on former Prime Minister Ingraham to sustain his political career and manage his conflicts, despite being a seasoned politician himself.
His track record speaks volumes. In 2017, despite his history of causing division—infamously turning against his own political ally, Loretta Butler-Turner—Minnis took a chance on Sands and supported his candidacy. However, after being elected, Sands quickly found himself embroiled in controversy. A senior magistrate publicly criticized his actions in a legal matter, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, he became entangled in another scandal when a plane was allowed to breach the country’s closed borders. The consequences were swift—Minnis removed him from Cabinet. Instead of taking responsibility, Sands lashed out in Parliament, openly criticizing the very emergency orders he had previously supported.
This only reaffirmed what Elizabeth voters already knew—Sands was not the right fit. They decisively rejected him in 2021, favoring a former senator instead. Despite claims of prioritizing the party’s success, Sands’ actions—both in Parliament and in the public sphere—suggest otherwise.
Minnis Stands for Unity and Respect
After unexpectedly assuming leadership of the FNM in 2012, Minnis made unity his priority. The FNM, known for making bold and sometimes controversial political moves, needed a steady hand. Minnis didn’t just talk about unity—he actively pursued it, reaching out to different factions within the party even when there were no formal agreements in place.
Unlike others who have aired party conflicts in public, Minnis remained committed to protecting the integrity of the FNM. His discretion and commitment to unity demonstrate true leadership.
Has Minnis Earned the Right to Set His Terms?
The answer is a resounding yes. Minnis is not an ordinary politician—he has a proven record of leadership and service. He is not tainted by scandal, has a history of electoral success, and has credibility that few can match.
Since entering politics in 2007, Minnis has made significant contributions, particularly in healthcare. He spearheaded major advancements, including introducing telemedicine, making The Bahamas the first country in this hemisphere to implement it. He rose through the ranks to become opposition leader and, in 2017, Prime Minister.
During his tenure, he faced unprecedented challenges—both within the party and on the national stage. There was no guidebook for leading during a global pandemic, but Minnis prioritized national safety over political convenience. Those who now work to discredit him do so out of personal grievances rather than genuine concern for the party’s future.
Minnis is not perfect, but he has consistently done what is right, often at great political cost. That alone has earned him the right to set his terms.
Is Minnis Betting on the FNM Losing?
Some claim that Minnis is secretly hoping for the FNM to lose. But if that were true, why does he continue to be a strong advocate for the party? In the House of Assembly, he has provided valuable information that exposes the government’s weaknesses. That is not the behavior of someone who wants his party to fail.
Instead, it seems that those closest to the current leader, Michael Pintard, are the real obstacles to party unity. Their personal vendettas are a greater threat to the FNM’s chances than Minnis ever could be. Rather than fueling division, Pintard should take a step back, seek wisdom, and carefully assess who within his inner circle truly has the party’s best interests at heart.
The FNM Will Always Move Forward
A small faction within the party insists that “The FNM must move forward, not backward.” But if that’s the case, where were they when Ingraham reversed course on his decision to step aside after two terms? When he returned and took the leadership from Tommy Turnquest, these same voices supported him. They dismissed concerns about Turnquest’s record and celebrated Ingraham’s return as a necessary move for the party’s success.
Now, in 2025, those same individuals are singing a different tune. The inconsistency is obvious.
Conclusion
The FNM’s history shows that leadership decisions should be made based on merit, experience, and the ability to unify the party—not on shifting narratives and personal grievances. Dr. Hubert Minnis has proven himself as a leader through some of the country’s most challenging times. He has earned the right to be considered for candidacy, and dismissing him outright would be a mistake.
The FNM must prioritize unity, experience, and a clear path forward. If history has taught us anything, it’s that strong leadership is not about who sits in the chair—it’s about who is best equipped to guide the party and the country through uncertain times.
Minnis has done it before. The question is: Will the FNM allow him to do it again?
Yours Truly,
Willam Gray
