The corrupters of the judicial system
tribune242 editorial
IN 1981 then Attorney General Paul Adderley considered a court system not in tune with the society in which it functioned, lawyers with neither a good nor high reputation, and corrupters of the system as part of this country's problems in getting criminals off the streets.
On the floor of the same House from which Mr Adderley had made that observation 30 years before, Prime Minister Ingraham advised politicians to distance themselves from criminals.
"The stark reality is that we did not reach the current level of crime overnight.
"And our attitude towards crime makes a difference. Complaining about crime, yet aiding and abetting criminal behaviour hurts our shared fight against crime," Mr Ingraham said.
"The less tolerant and accommodating we are of criminal enterprise and behaviour, the more effective will be our fight against crime.
"The entire society has an obligation to assist the police in doing their jobs."
Mr Adderley was of the opinion that the police were not getting the assistance they needed from the courts. He believed the judicial system was demonstrating more sympathy for the law-breaker than for the long suffering public.
Mr Adderley criticised the category of people who perpetrate acts of corruption -- influence peddlers and people seeking permission by paying off someone.
Lawyers, he said, among other professions, fall into this category.
"For the most part," said Mr Adderley, "the vast majority of lawyers are entitled to a good and high reputation, but those who are entitled to a good and high reputation do not have either a good or a high reputation because there are some lawyers who have an atrociously bad reputation who are entitled to neither a good nor a high reputation.
"By the conduct of a relatively small number of lawyers in the Bahamas, lawyers generally today have a low reputation.
"This is to be attributed to those lawyers who belong in the category of the corrupt."
He also had something to say about the category of lawyers who charge clients "outrageously, almost criminally high fees."
He then moved to those -- especially drug dealers -- who bribed the courts.
"One of the most corrupting influences on the total system is the amount of money which is in the hands of the drug traffickers," he said.
As attorney general he found it necessary to have drug cases put in a distinct category.
Two years before he felt he had justifiable reasons to give directives to magistrate's court prosecutors that any case involving drugs could not be withdrawn without the consent of the Office of the Attorney General.
He knew of "prevalent incidents" that justified his decision "because some way along the way the system had been corrupted."
Even juries in the Bahamas were bought, he said, but unfortunately, sufficient evidence could not be found to prosecute.
We leave it to our readers to judge whether much has changed in the profession since Mr Adderley's 1981 observations.
What he as Attorney General complained of in 1981 remains among the many problems that make the fight against crime difficult today.
June 08, 2011
tribune242 editorial
A political blog about Bahamian politics in The Bahamas, Bahamian Politicans - and the entire Bahamas political lot. Bahamian Blogger Dennis Dames keeps you updated on the political news and views throughout the islands of The Bahamas without fear or favor. Bahamian Politicians and the Bahamian Political Arena: Updates one Post at a time on Bahamas Politics and Bahamas Politicans; and their local, regional and international policies and perspectives.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Will the United States Embassy cables being published by The Nassau Guardian via WikiLeaks have an impact on how Bahamians vote in the upcoming general election?
WikiLeaks: An election issue?
thenassauguardian editorial
Within a year, Bahamians will again be voting for a government. The third non-consecutive term of the Free National Movement (FNM) in office is coming to an end. The general election campaign hasn’t officially started yet, but both the FNM and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) have hosted sporadic rallies.
The economy, the crime problem and leadership are likely major issues to be discussed along the way. Reading some of the Bahamian blogs and websites, some seem to also wonder if the United States Embassy cables being published by The Nassau Guardian via WikiLeaks will have an impact on how Bahamians vote.
They should, as Bahamians should evaluate as much information as possible before making a decision on the party they will vote for. The times are serious. Irrational voting based on old family ties or tradition will not help advance the country from where it is to where we all want it to be.
The cables present a behind the scenes view of diplomacy in this country and also the opinions of our closest and most powerful friend, the United States. More specifically, they provide insight into how our leaders are perceived by the U.S. The analysis is raw and candid, as it was not meant for public consumption.
The Americans have interacted closely with our political leaders and ruling class for years. It is their job to get to know Bahamian power brokers as demonstrated by their interviews and conversations with FNM leader Hubert Ingraham and PLP leader Perry Christie. It is also their job to get to know the want to be power brokers, such as Cassius Stuart who had too much to say to an American official during the Elizabeth by-election.
The Americans have also worked closely with both parties and both prime ministers – Christie and Ingraham – during their terms in office. At times, as will be revealed in upcoming cables, the embassy officials and our leaders worked very closely together on issues of local and international significance.
Thus far, based on the cables published, Ingraham has come across as over-confident, competent and a little arrogant. Christie has come across as less than organized, a nice guy and indecisive. The Americans have perceived character traits in the men that Bahamians have too.
What the cables can offer to voters is the impression of a critic, the U.S., who has a major interest in The Bahamas. For that critic The Bahamas is important, as it is one of three countries bordering the U.S. Its friendship and partnership are very important to America, as Bahamian intransigence would lead to a massive spike in the amount of drugs and illegal migrants flowing into that country.
The cables present serious analysis from a serious partner. They are not gossip. They are meant to help the U.S. State Department set policy towards this country.
With The Bahamas still not clearly out of recession, a recession that began at the end of 2008, and a fourth homicide record in five years a near certainty, the cables will likely not be the main issue at the general election. However, they will make for some good reading over the next few months.
At the end of this process we suggest that our readers take another read of the volumes of material written by the Americans on the issues analyzed between 2003 and 2010.
Then, if there is a particular issue that piques your curiosity, we suggest questions should be asked to canvassing politicians during the campaign.
Jun 07, 2011
thenassauguardian editorial
..."apathy and a weak public opinion have led to the present unhappy and undesirable state of affairs in The Bahamas
Paul Adderley's view of court sentences
tribune242 editorial
INSTEAD OF assisting the police in crime solving, many Bahamians like to sit back and fingerpoint, blaming one or other political party for its cause.
While crime and its root causes are complex, Prime Minister Ingraham told House members last week that society cannot expect change if it continues to accept the practice of politicians receiving gifts from criminals to support an election. During the last two general elections, he said, there were claims that some politicians took money and gifts from drug dealers and other disreputable characters. We can add that no matter how hard these politicians might deny these claims, these disreputable characters, proud of their new found importance, don't mind chatting with reporters about their generosity to their "friends" in high places.
It's fairly easy to chart the source and escalation of crime through the columns of The Tribune.
Serious crime started in the sixties with politics. Suddenly Bahamians denied each other the democratic right of free speech, association and security. The advent of the PLP's "goon" squads at political rallies, escalating into burning of property, injury of citizens and general mayhem, started the ball rolling, followed in the seventies and eighties by the advent of the drug traffickers, fast boats, retaliatory killings, and a general breakdown of all the rules that held a Christian society together. Fast money was a badge of success and in schools some children expressed their dreams in schoolroom essays of one day following a family member into the drug trade.
The 1984 Commission of Inquiry summarised the corruption that had society in its grip --a corruption that had infiltrated even to the ministerial level of government and a "drug trade that caused persons to 'wink their eyes' or look the other way." It also left us with a Prime Minister who - according to the Minority Report of the inquiry into drug transshipment -- "did not exercise sufficient care to preclude the possibility of drug-related funds reaching his bank account or being applied for his benefit."
We recall the lone voice of then Assistant Police Commissioner Paul Thompson who predicted the very murder that we see on our streets today if society did not come to grips with the reality of those times.
In 1981-- 30 years ago -- then Attorney General Paul Adderley complained of the leniency with which drug offenders were being dealt with by the courts. His was the same complaint that we have today. He felt that the courts were contributing to society's breakdown.
Taking as his theme "Crime and its dirty companion corruption," Mr Adderley, in addressing the House on the appointment of a select committee to investigate criminal activities, took a dim view of the decision of some Supreme Court judges to allow probation for persons who had been convicted of armed robbery and other serious offences. As for the magistrates he wanted to know what they were thinking in their light sentencing of drug dealers.
Mr Adderley reminded the courts that a short time before the legislature had significantly increased the penalty for drug offenders. The prison term, he said, was increased five-fold and the maximum fine was increased twenty-fold.
"So there was no question as to how Parliament wished the court to view the seriousness of the drug offence," said Mr Adderley. "Notwithstanding that fact, that has been persistently ignored by the sentencing practice by the Magistrate's Court.
"The bench in the Magistrate's court," he said, "appears not to be aware of the fact of what the law was amended to. It is not for the bench to ignore the wishes of Parliament."
He recalled a particular case when a man pleaded guilty to more than six offences of armed robbery and was released on probation.
"That is wrong," he thundered. "It is right that it be said in this place (House of Assembly) that that kind of sentencing is bad, is destructive of public confidence in the system, is frustrating to police and totally inconsistent with what ought to be the morality of the community."
Today the situation is even worse -- many rogues are roaming our streets with one or more murder charges pending.
Mr Adderley knew of no way to protect society against that "small minority of persons who are terrorising the Bahamian community, except by long terms of imprisonment."
Mr Adderley was also harsh on Bahamian lawyers, who, he said, had neither a good nor high reputation. His views are interesting. We shall let Mr Adderley vent fully on them in this column tomorrow. Our readers know that nothing has improved with time, although we are confident that we have an Attorney General's office manned by lawyers fully aware of the problem who are trying to do something about it and a government that has vowed to amend the Bail Act.
We can only agree with the Commission of Inquiry's report of 27 years ago that "apathy and a weak public opinion have led to the present unhappy and undesirable state of affairs in the nation."
So don't send to inquire as to who is to blame for the country's crime. It is you, Mr Joe Q. Public. And no one can improve society's lot until Mr and Mrs Joe Q. Public bestir themselves and assist the police force with information to help fight the crime.
June 07, 2011
tribune242 editorial
tribune242 editorial
INSTEAD OF assisting the police in crime solving, many Bahamians like to sit back and fingerpoint, blaming one or other political party for its cause.
While crime and its root causes are complex, Prime Minister Ingraham told House members last week that society cannot expect change if it continues to accept the practice of politicians receiving gifts from criminals to support an election. During the last two general elections, he said, there were claims that some politicians took money and gifts from drug dealers and other disreputable characters. We can add that no matter how hard these politicians might deny these claims, these disreputable characters, proud of their new found importance, don't mind chatting with reporters about their generosity to their "friends" in high places.
It's fairly easy to chart the source and escalation of crime through the columns of The Tribune.
Serious crime started in the sixties with politics. Suddenly Bahamians denied each other the democratic right of free speech, association and security. The advent of the PLP's "goon" squads at political rallies, escalating into burning of property, injury of citizens and general mayhem, started the ball rolling, followed in the seventies and eighties by the advent of the drug traffickers, fast boats, retaliatory killings, and a general breakdown of all the rules that held a Christian society together. Fast money was a badge of success and in schools some children expressed their dreams in schoolroom essays of one day following a family member into the drug trade.
The 1984 Commission of Inquiry summarised the corruption that had society in its grip --a corruption that had infiltrated even to the ministerial level of government and a "drug trade that caused persons to 'wink their eyes' or look the other way." It also left us with a Prime Minister who - according to the Minority Report of the inquiry into drug transshipment -- "did not exercise sufficient care to preclude the possibility of drug-related funds reaching his bank account or being applied for his benefit."
We recall the lone voice of then Assistant Police Commissioner Paul Thompson who predicted the very murder that we see on our streets today if society did not come to grips with the reality of those times.
In 1981-- 30 years ago -- then Attorney General Paul Adderley complained of the leniency with which drug offenders were being dealt with by the courts. His was the same complaint that we have today. He felt that the courts were contributing to society's breakdown.
Taking as his theme "Crime and its dirty companion corruption," Mr Adderley, in addressing the House on the appointment of a select committee to investigate criminal activities, took a dim view of the decision of some Supreme Court judges to allow probation for persons who had been convicted of armed robbery and other serious offences. As for the magistrates he wanted to know what they were thinking in their light sentencing of drug dealers.
Mr Adderley reminded the courts that a short time before the legislature had significantly increased the penalty for drug offenders. The prison term, he said, was increased five-fold and the maximum fine was increased twenty-fold.
"So there was no question as to how Parliament wished the court to view the seriousness of the drug offence," said Mr Adderley. "Notwithstanding that fact, that has been persistently ignored by the sentencing practice by the Magistrate's Court.
"The bench in the Magistrate's court," he said, "appears not to be aware of the fact of what the law was amended to. It is not for the bench to ignore the wishes of Parliament."
He recalled a particular case when a man pleaded guilty to more than six offences of armed robbery and was released on probation.
"That is wrong," he thundered. "It is right that it be said in this place (House of Assembly) that that kind of sentencing is bad, is destructive of public confidence in the system, is frustrating to police and totally inconsistent with what ought to be the morality of the community."
Today the situation is even worse -- many rogues are roaming our streets with one or more murder charges pending.
Mr Adderley knew of no way to protect society against that "small minority of persons who are terrorising the Bahamian community, except by long terms of imprisonment."
Mr Adderley was also harsh on Bahamian lawyers, who, he said, had neither a good nor high reputation. His views are interesting. We shall let Mr Adderley vent fully on them in this column tomorrow. Our readers know that nothing has improved with time, although we are confident that we have an Attorney General's office manned by lawyers fully aware of the problem who are trying to do something about it and a government that has vowed to amend the Bail Act.
We can only agree with the Commission of Inquiry's report of 27 years ago that "apathy and a weak public opinion have led to the present unhappy and undesirable state of affairs in the nation."
So don't send to inquire as to who is to blame for the country's crime. It is you, Mr Joe Q. Public. And no one can improve society's lot until Mr and Mrs Joe Q. Public bestir themselves and assist the police force with information to help fight the crime.
June 07, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
WikiLeaks: Perry Christie had deep concerns about the Petrocaribe agreement with Venezuela while he was prime minister...and his worries about certain moves then Minister of Trade and Industry Leslie Miller was making, allegedly without Cabinet approval
Christie hit out at Miller
U.S. Cables reveal sharp Cabinet division over Petrocaribe in 2005
BY CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through the whistleblower WikiLeaks reveal deep concerns Perry Christie had about the Petrocaribe agreement with Venezuela while he was prime minister, and his worries about certain moves then Minister of Trade and Industry Leslie Miller was making, allegedly without Cabinet approval.
In fact, the cables reveal that the Christie Cabinet was “sharply divided” on Petrocaribe, a program under which countries purchase oil from Venezuela on conditions of preferential treatment.
One cable claims Christie made a direct negative comment relative to Miller as a minister.
“Some ministers, the PM continued, were brought into the Cabinet because of their qualifications; others, like Minister Miller, were included in an effort, at times unsuccessful, to keep an eye on what they’re doing,” said the cable, which was classified by then U.S. Ambassador to The Bahamas John Rood.
The cable said that at a private meeting Rood had with Christie in July 2005, the then prime minister discussed several energy matters as well as his political future.
“The PM indicated that he has concerns about the Petrocaribe agreement signed on behalf of The Bahamas on June 29 by Trade and Industry Minister Leslie Miller,” the cable said.
“He stated that Minister Miller ‘got way out in front of the Cabinet’ on the issue and suggested that Cabinet’s eventual consideration of the Petrocaribe agreement would not be favorable.
“...The PM recalled that there were no disruptions to local fuel supplies during [the 2004] busy hurricane season.
“He doubted that government, given its poor record running hotels, airlines, and utilities, would be able to do as well as the international oil companies had done. The PM confided that the Trinidadian government had expressed to him its displeasure that Minister Miller signed the Petrocaribe agreement.”
In another cable penned about a month earlier, a U.S. Embassy official wrote that Christie had up to that point remained silent on the issue but “has shown no inclination to embark on the type of sweeping project that Minister Miller envisions”.
“On the other hand, Christie has also shown no inclination to silence a minister whose more outrageous comments regularly make for embarrassing headlines,” the June 2005 cable said.
“Minister Miller is an erratic figure within the Christie Cabinet and his frequent dramatic pronouncements on issues ranging from Petrocaribe, to hurricane relief funding, to liquefied natural gas projects are taken with a large grain of salt.
“His recent comments on high gasoline prices have focused less on Venezuela and more on decreasing the fixed markups that local gasoline importers and retailers are permitted to charge,” the cable said.
The American diplomat observed: “The Bahamas is sufficiently interested in possibly lowering its energy bill to keep sending Minister Miller to Petrocaribe meetings, but it has little in common politically with President [Hugo] Chavez.
“The one possible exception is Cuba, with which The Bahamas shares a pragmatic working relationship based on migrant issues and other people-to-people matters such as tourism and medical training and treatment.”
That same cable reveals that a high level government official had privately expressed concern that a “loose cannon” like Miller would be representing The Bahamas at an upcoming meeting between CARICOM and Chavez.
The Bahamian official suggested to the Americans that rather than request Miller to speak out, “it might be better for both countries (The Bahamas and the United States) if he stayed in the background and made no other substantive comment.”
MILLER’S RESPONSE
According to that cable, Miller called a U.S. Embassy official to discuss his trip.
Responding to the official’s urging that the best long-term solution to the energy situation would be a market-based solution within the context of a stable, democratic political system, Miller said that in petroleum, economics and politics are always mixed, the diplomat recorded.
“He called on the United States to itself construct new oil refineries in the U.S. to relieve supply shortages,” the cable said.
“Miller then went on to describe himself as a ‘nationalist’ saying that he understood why ‘dirt poor people in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina’ were upset with oil companies.
“When [the embassy official] cautioned against concluding an agreement with an unstable government whose president had a penchant for tearing up and re-writing contracts, Miller responded by declaring that paying royalties from extracted natural resources of ‘one percent’ was ‘ridiculous and unfair’.”
The embassy official, according to the cable, told Miller that investment required stability, transparency, and predictability and that all of these were in short supply in Chavez’s Venezuela.
In another cable, the Americans wrote that Miller had returned from Venezuela “waving the Petrocaribe agreement and declaring cheap gas prices in our time.”
Miller was quoted as saying, “What we got from the Venezuelans is a dream come true. This is an extraordinary agreement, one that I have been behind for the past two and a half years.”
But the Americans wrote: “Reducing the price of gas in The Bahamas without reducing either wholesaler or dealer profit margins or the government tax has long been one of Leslie Miller’s signature theme projects.
“His past predictions of cheap gas in our time have gone unfulfilled while he has lurched from political gaffe to political gaffe. The local oil companies have long been suspicious of his maneuverings and have challenged his proposals both publicly and privately.
“His permanent secretary, the senior civil servant in his ministry, has long given up trying to explain to him the economics of the oil business in general and in The Bahamas in particular.”
The diplomat said the lack of consultation with the local oil companies suggested that any real changes to The Bahamas’ energy market “remains a distant dream”.
In the comment section of the cable, the American diplomat wrote: “Local reaction to Petrocaribe has been skeptical ever since its signing.
“Minister Miller’s actions have been criticized in terms of process (not having Cabinet’s authorization) and on substance (creating another inefficient government entity, relying on a single source of supply, and endorsing Venezuela’s political agenda).”
The cable said that while Miller was pushing Petrocaribe, Christie indicated to the ambassador that he intended to walk away from the agreement.
Miller has said he will not ever accept a cabinet appointment again. He has already been ratified by the PLP to run again in Blue Hills, a seat he lost to attorney Sidney Collie in 2007.
The July 2005 cable also revealed that Christie, at the time, was unsure as to whether he would be able to lead the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) into the 2007 general election, as he was still recovering from a mild stroke.
“The PM stated that he has already begun internal discussions on the timing of the next elections, which he must call no later than May 2007,” the cable said.
“He believed he would know by his party’s annual convention in November whether or not he is strong enough to lead the party into elections for another five-year term. If he is fit enough to run, the PM is confident that no one will be able to defeat him.”
Christie was strong enough to lead his party into the election. However, his party was defeated.
When the Free National Movement (FNM) came to office in 2007, it made it clear that The Bahamas government was not interested in the oil alliance with Venezuela.
In a May 2007 cable, a U.S. Embassy official wrote, “We do not expect any warming of relations between Caracas and Nassau.
“Indeed we expect the FNM government to be a stronger partner of the Untied States in addressing Venezuela-related issues.”
Not long after, Minister of State for Public Utilities Phenton Neymour confirmed that Petrocaribe was not, and would not be, a priority for the new Bahamian government.
An embassy official later wrote that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham called the Petrocaribe accord a “stupid proposal”.
The Americans noted: “The Bahamas has a wholly privatized oil distribution system that is incompatible with Petrocaribe. Further, both FNM and PLP senior leadership are leery about being beholden to Venezuela.”
Jun 07, 2011
thenassauguardian
U.S. Cables reveal sharp Cabinet division over Petrocaribe in 2005
BY CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
Cables obtained by The Nassau Guardian through the whistleblower WikiLeaks reveal deep concerns Perry Christie had about the Petrocaribe agreement with Venezuela while he was prime minister, and his worries about certain moves then Minister of Trade and Industry Leslie Miller was making, allegedly without Cabinet approval.
In fact, the cables reveal that the Christie Cabinet was “sharply divided” on Petrocaribe, a program under which countries purchase oil from Venezuela on conditions of preferential treatment.
One cable claims Christie made a direct negative comment relative to Miller as a minister.
“Some ministers, the PM continued, were brought into the Cabinet because of their qualifications; others, like Minister Miller, were included in an effort, at times unsuccessful, to keep an eye on what they’re doing,” said the cable, which was classified by then U.S. Ambassador to The Bahamas John Rood.
The cable said that at a private meeting Rood had with Christie in July 2005, the then prime minister discussed several energy matters as well as his political future.
“The PM indicated that he has concerns about the Petrocaribe agreement signed on behalf of The Bahamas on June 29 by Trade and Industry Minister Leslie Miller,” the cable said.
“He stated that Minister Miller ‘got way out in front of the Cabinet’ on the issue and suggested that Cabinet’s eventual consideration of the Petrocaribe agreement would not be favorable.
“...The PM recalled that there were no disruptions to local fuel supplies during [the 2004] busy hurricane season.
“He doubted that government, given its poor record running hotels, airlines, and utilities, would be able to do as well as the international oil companies had done. The PM confided that the Trinidadian government had expressed to him its displeasure that Minister Miller signed the Petrocaribe agreement.”
In another cable penned about a month earlier, a U.S. Embassy official wrote that Christie had up to that point remained silent on the issue but “has shown no inclination to embark on the type of sweeping project that Minister Miller envisions”.
“On the other hand, Christie has also shown no inclination to silence a minister whose more outrageous comments regularly make for embarrassing headlines,” the June 2005 cable said.
“Minister Miller is an erratic figure within the Christie Cabinet and his frequent dramatic pronouncements on issues ranging from Petrocaribe, to hurricane relief funding, to liquefied natural gas projects are taken with a large grain of salt.
“His recent comments on high gasoline prices have focused less on Venezuela and more on decreasing the fixed markups that local gasoline importers and retailers are permitted to charge,” the cable said.
The American diplomat observed: “The Bahamas is sufficiently interested in possibly lowering its energy bill to keep sending Minister Miller to Petrocaribe meetings, but it has little in common politically with President [Hugo] Chavez.
“The one possible exception is Cuba, with which The Bahamas shares a pragmatic working relationship based on migrant issues and other people-to-people matters such as tourism and medical training and treatment.”
That same cable reveals that a high level government official had privately expressed concern that a “loose cannon” like Miller would be representing The Bahamas at an upcoming meeting between CARICOM and Chavez.
The Bahamian official suggested to the Americans that rather than request Miller to speak out, “it might be better for both countries (The Bahamas and the United States) if he stayed in the background and made no other substantive comment.”
MILLER’S RESPONSE
According to that cable, Miller called a U.S. Embassy official to discuss his trip.
Responding to the official’s urging that the best long-term solution to the energy situation would be a market-based solution within the context of a stable, democratic political system, Miller said that in petroleum, economics and politics are always mixed, the diplomat recorded.
“He called on the United States to itself construct new oil refineries in the U.S. to relieve supply shortages,” the cable said.
“Miller then went on to describe himself as a ‘nationalist’ saying that he understood why ‘dirt poor people in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina’ were upset with oil companies.
“When [the embassy official] cautioned against concluding an agreement with an unstable government whose president had a penchant for tearing up and re-writing contracts, Miller responded by declaring that paying royalties from extracted natural resources of ‘one percent’ was ‘ridiculous and unfair’.”
The embassy official, according to the cable, told Miller that investment required stability, transparency, and predictability and that all of these were in short supply in Chavez’s Venezuela.
In another cable, the Americans wrote that Miller had returned from Venezuela “waving the Petrocaribe agreement and declaring cheap gas prices in our time.”
Miller was quoted as saying, “What we got from the Venezuelans is a dream come true. This is an extraordinary agreement, one that I have been behind for the past two and a half years.”
But the Americans wrote: “Reducing the price of gas in The Bahamas without reducing either wholesaler or dealer profit margins or the government tax has long been one of Leslie Miller’s signature theme projects.
“His past predictions of cheap gas in our time have gone unfulfilled while he has lurched from political gaffe to political gaffe. The local oil companies have long been suspicious of his maneuverings and have challenged his proposals both publicly and privately.
“His permanent secretary, the senior civil servant in his ministry, has long given up trying to explain to him the economics of the oil business in general and in The Bahamas in particular.”
The diplomat said the lack of consultation with the local oil companies suggested that any real changes to The Bahamas’ energy market “remains a distant dream”.
In the comment section of the cable, the American diplomat wrote: “Local reaction to Petrocaribe has been skeptical ever since its signing.
“Minister Miller’s actions have been criticized in terms of process (not having Cabinet’s authorization) and on substance (creating another inefficient government entity, relying on a single source of supply, and endorsing Venezuela’s political agenda).”
The cable said that while Miller was pushing Petrocaribe, Christie indicated to the ambassador that he intended to walk away from the agreement.
Miller has said he will not ever accept a cabinet appointment again. He has already been ratified by the PLP to run again in Blue Hills, a seat he lost to attorney Sidney Collie in 2007.
The July 2005 cable also revealed that Christie, at the time, was unsure as to whether he would be able to lead the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) into the 2007 general election, as he was still recovering from a mild stroke.
“The PM stated that he has already begun internal discussions on the timing of the next elections, which he must call no later than May 2007,” the cable said.
“He believed he would know by his party’s annual convention in November whether or not he is strong enough to lead the party into elections for another five-year term. If he is fit enough to run, the PM is confident that no one will be able to defeat him.”
Christie was strong enough to lead his party into the election. However, his party was defeated.
When the Free National Movement (FNM) came to office in 2007, it made it clear that The Bahamas government was not interested in the oil alliance with Venezuela.
In a May 2007 cable, a U.S. Embassy official wrote, “We do not expect any warming of relations between Caracas and Nassau.
“Indeed we expect the FNM government to be a stronger partner of the Untied States in addressing Venezuela-related issues.”
Not long after, Minister of State for Public Utilities Phenton Neymour confirmed that Petrocaribe was not, and would not be, a priority for the new Bahamian government.
An embassy official later wrote that Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham called the Petrocaribe accord a “stupid proposal”.
The Americans noted: “The Bahamas has a wholly privatized oil distribution system that is incompatible with Petrocaribe. Further, both FNM and PLP senior leadership are leery about being beholden to Venezuela.”
Jun 07, 2011
thenassauguardian
WikiLeaks: ...there might have been terrorist “support and financial cells in The Bahamas,” and “financing links”
US: Local terror ties suspected
Muslim leaders claim they are being 'harassed' by embassy officials
BY JUAN McCARTNEY
NG Senior Reporter
thenassauguardian
juan@nasguard.com
A United States Embassy assessment of possible terrorist activity in this country claimed that in 2006 there was information to indicate that there might have been terrorist “support and financial cells in The Bahamas,” and “financing links” within the country, according to a classified communication exclusively obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
That cable also claimed that some members of the local Muslim population were being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and another agency.
The cable detailed the result of a Security Environment Profile Questionnaire (SEPQ) completed by an official at the embassy and classified “secret” in February 2006.
The SEPQ labeled some local Muslims as sympathetic toward foreign terrorist groups and claimed that they posed a possible threat to U.S. and Bahamian security.
“There is an Islamic community building a mosque in Nassau from which some threat information was obtained,” the cable revealed.
“The leader and other members of the mosque are currently under investigation by the FBI and (another agency).”
The cable went on to state that the embassy was “unable to make a full assessment” at the time “but there does not appear to be imminent hostile intent.”
When The Nassau Guardian asked leaders of the local Muslim community if their organization had any ties to terrorist groups, they categorically denied any such links.
The leaders added that they were “deeply offended” by the content of the cables.
“They have no basis for that statement. Where is the evidence of this?”” asked Amir Faisal Hepburn, one of the administrators of the mosque on Carmichael Road where many Muslims worship.
“Those who have done nothing fear nothing. We are a properly registered religious organization in the Bahamas. The Bahamian people on the whole, their character is not (disposed) to terrorism.”
One of the elders said that the Muslim community has met repeatedly with the officials from the U.S. Embassy who have had questions about the nature of activities at the mosque.
In addition, the elder claimed, Muslim leaders have also repeatedly met with police and other law enforcement officials to quell any fears about the Islamic community in the country.
The construction of the mosque was also the focus of some attention by the U.S. government and even a representative of the government of Israel.
According to a 2005 cable, visiting Israeli Ambassador David Dadonn — who was stationed in Mexico City — told the U.S. Ambassador to The Bahamas John Rood that he had “expressed concern about (the building of a large mosque on New Providence) to Bahamian officials but that they indicated that they could do nothing about its construction.”
The cable went on to speculate that the mosque was being constructed with funds from the government of Saudi Arabia.
“Dadonn promised to forward any additional information about the mosque, its programs, or its funding that became available to him,” the cable said.
Hepburn said the financing of the mosque has nothing to do with the United States or Israel.
“Organizations all around the world receive gifts and contributions from all sources and we are no exception to it,” he said. “So we say categorically that it has nothing to do with terrorism and it has nothing to do with that biased statement by an Israeli. The Bahamas is far away from Israel. What can he (Dadonn) look into? He should be more concerned about what is happening in Israel.”
However, Hepburn admitted that the mosque’s construction was funded in part by Saudi citizens.
“There is a difference between funding by the Saudi government and funding by Muslims in Saudi Arabia. We are not funded by the Saudi government, that’s not so. Now the citizens might be a part of the government, but that’s a different thing.”
Amir Hepburn alleged officials at the U.S. Embassy have consistently harassed and profiled Muslims in The Bahamas since the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil.
“Recently, we have Muslims who were called to the (U.S.) embassy to say that something was wrong with their visa and the American cancelled it. When they asked them why the visa was being cancelled, they said, ‘They don’t have to give an answer.’”
One of the elders added that the Americans “will never say any Muslim is a good guy.”
The threat assessment also commented on the “level, intent, and scope of hostile intelligence services…relative to potential anti-American terrorist acts” in the country.
“Cuba and China have a presence in country,” noted the embassy. “Two known Cuban intelligence officers are working at the Cuban Embassy. Post is not aware of any Chinese Intelligence Officers in the Bahamas but approaches have been made to U.S. officials that have previously been reported.”
The Bahamas’ ability to deal with a terrorist threat
Even though the U.S. Embassy did not believe there was any imminent hostile threat from the Muslim community in The Bahamas, it was still required to assess local law enforcement capabilities.
The questionnaire revealed that it was the embassy’s view that the Royal Bahamas Police Force was a “professional police organization” that was “reasonably well trained” and did not suffer from “serious, widespread” corruption.
But the SEPQ noted that, “They suffer from a lack of material and personnel resources, which causes difficulty in responding to U.S. (government) inquiries in a timely manner.”
The fact that the RBPF frequently receives training from numerous U.S. agencies was also highlighted.
Still, the SEPQ stated that the RBPF was only “somewhat” capable of deterring terrorist actions.
“The RBPF has the only intelligence gathering apparatus in The Bahamas. It is rudimentary, but continues to develop with U.S. (government) assistance,” the cable revealed.
“They are frequently slow to take action or initiate investigations. They lack modern equipment with which to identify, catalog, or monitor terrorists or terrorist activity in the Bahamas.”
The SEPQ remarked that local intelligence services had been cooperative with U.S. requests “but with frequently slow response times.”
The embassy also assessed overall security at major airports in the country at the time as “average/poor”.
Customs, immigration and border control security forces in the country were assessed as “average.”
The embassy also gave its assessment on the availability of weapons and explosives in country or from nearby countries for hostile terrorist elements.
“Smuggling in the Bahamas is easy and occurs frequently,” the assessment said.
“Historically, the Bahamas has been the point of entry for illegal migrants, drugs, and contraband into the southeast United States. Weapons are easily obtained, either locally or from other countries.”
Jun 06, 2011
thenassauguardian
Muslim leaders claim they are being 'harassed' by embassy officials
BY JUAN McCARTNEY
NG Senior Reporter
thenassauguardian
juan@nasguard.com
A United States Embassy assessment of possible terrorist activity in this country claimed that in 2006 there was information to indicate that there might have been terrorist “support and financial cells in The Bahamas,” and “financing links” within the country, according to a classified communication exclusively obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks.
That cable also claimed that some members of the local Muslim population were being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and another agency.
The cable detailed the result of a Security Environment Profile Questionnaire (SEPQ) completed by an official at the embassy and classified “secret” in February 2006.
The SEPQ labeled some local Muslims as sympathetic toward foreign terrorist groups and claimed that they posed a possible threat to U.S. and Bahamian security.
“There is an Islamic community building a mosque in Nassau from which some threat information was obtained,” the cable revealed.
“The leader and other members of the mosque are currently under investigation by the FBI and (another agency).”
The cable went on to state that the embassy was “unable to make a full assessment” at the time “but there does not appear to be imminent hostile intent.”
When The Nassau Guardian asked leaders of the local Muslim community if their organization had any ties to terrorist groups, they categorically denied any such links.
The leaders added that they were “deeply offended” by the content of the cables.
“They have no basis for that statement. Where is the evidence of this?”” asked Amir Faisal Hepburn, one of the administrators of the mosque on Carmichael Road where many Muslims worship.
“Those who have done nothing fear nothing. We are a properly registered religious organization in the Bahamas. The Bahamian people on the whole, their character is not (disposed) to terrorism.”
One of the elders said that the Muslim community has met repeatedly with the officials from the U.S. Embassy who have had questions about the nature of activities at the mosque.
In addition, the elder claimed, Muslim leaders have also repeatedly met with police and other law enforcement officials to quell any fears about the Islamic community in the country.
The construction of the mosque was also the focus of some attention by the U.S. government and even a representative of the government of Israel.
According to a 2005 cable, visiting Israeli Ambassador David Dadonn — who was stationed in Mexico City — told the U.S. Ambassador to The Bahamas John Rood that he had “expressed concern about (the building of a large mosque on New Providence) to Bahamian officials but that they indicated that they could do nothing about its construction.”
The cable went on to speculate that the mosque was being constructed with funds from the government of Saudi Arabia.
“Dadonn promised to forward any additional information about the mosque, its programs, or its funding that became available to him,” the cable said.
Hepburn said the financing of the mosque has nothing to do with the United States or Israel.
“Organizations all around the world receive gifts and contributions from all sources and we are no exception to it,” he said. “So we say categorically that it has nothing to do with terrorism and it has nothing to do with that biased statement by an Israeli. The Bahamas is far away from Israel. What can he (Dadonn) look into? He should be more concerned about what is happening in Israel.”
However, Hepburn admitted that the mosque’s construction was funded in part by Saudi citizens.
“There is a difference between funding by the Saudi government and funding by Muslims in Saudi Arabia. We are not funded by the Saudi government, that’s not so. Now the citizens might be a part of the government, but that’s a different thing.”
Amir Hepburn alleged officials at the U.S. Embassy have consistently harassed and profiled Muslims in The Bahamas since the September 11, 2001 attacks on U.S. soil.
“Recently, we have Muslims who were called to the (U.S.) embassy to say that something was wrong with their visa and the American cancelled it. When they asked them why the visa was being cancelled, they said, ‘They don’t have to give an answer.’”
One of the elders added that the Americans “will never say any Muslim is a good guy.”
The threat assessment also commented on the “level, intent, and scope of hostile intelligence services…relative to potential anti-American terrorist acts” in the country.
“Cuba and China have a presence in country,” noted the embassy. “Two known Cuban intelligence officers are working at the Cuban Embassy. Post is not aware of any Chinese Intelligence Officers in the Bahamas but approaches have been made to U.S. officials that have previously been reported.”
The Bahamas’ ability to deal with a terrorist threat
Even though the U.S. Embassy did not believe there was any imminent hostile threat from the Muslim community in The Bahamas, it was still required to assess local law enforcement capabilities.
The questionnaire revealed that it was the embassy’s view that the Royal Bahamas Police Force was a “professional police organization” that was “reasonably well trained” and did not suffer from “serious, widespread” corruption.
But the SEPQ noted that, “They suffer from a lack of material and personnel resources, which causes difficulty in responding to U.S. (government) inquiries in a timely manner.”
The fact that the RBPF frequently receives training from numerous U.S. agencies was also highlighted.
Still, the SEPQ stated that the RBPF was only “somewhat” capable of deterring terrorist actions.
“The RBPF has the only intelligence gathering apparatus in The Bahamas. It is rudimentary, but continues to develop with U.S. (government) assistance,” the cable revealed.
“They are frequently slow to take action or initiate investigations. They lack modern equipment with which to identify, catalog, or monitor terrorists or terrorist activity in the Bahamas.”
The SEPQ remarked that local intelligence services had been cooperative with U.S. requests “but with frequently slow response times.”
The embassy also assessed overall security at major airports in the country at the time as “average/poor”.
Customs, immigration and border control security forces in the country were assessed as “average.”
The embassy also gave its assessment on the availability of weapons and explosives in country or from nearby countries for hostile terrorist elements.
“Smuggling in the Bahamas is easy and occurs frequently,” the assessment said.
“Historically, the Bahamas has been the point of entry for illegal migrants, drugs, and contraband into the southeast United States. Weapons are easily obtained, either locally or from other countries.”
Jun 06, 2011
thenassauguardian
Monday, June 6, 2011
WikiLeaks on Bishop Neil C. Ellis...and Bishop Neil C. Ellis on WikiLeaks
CANDIA DAMES
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
The American also wrote that at a meeting with Ellis at his Mount Tabor Baptist Church, he also remarked that Hubert Ingraham, at the time - former prime minister, was definitely “not a man of God” even if he does attend church.
When we sat down with Ellis a few days ago at Mount Tabor to discuss the cables that mentioned his name, Ellis denied most of the claims documented by U.S. diplomats.
But it is the claim regarding his purported comment on Christie and Ingraham’s spirituality that he seemed most taken aback by.
“I don’t qualify to determine who is a man of God and who is not a man of God,” he told The Nassau Guardian.
“…For me to say I think Christie is a pretender would be very hypocritical of me because I’ve always said publicly and I would say again, I believe Perry Christie is one of the greatest humanitarians I’ve ever met.”
A read of at least two cables shows that while Ellis was growing his church, American diplomats were placing the spotlight on him and his relationship with Christie in a major way.
“Quite a bit of it surprises me,” said Ellis, when asked about what his general impression was of what the Americans attributed to him.
According to the cables, obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks, despite not being a member of the government, Ellis wielded considerable influence in the Christie administration, as did businessman Franklyn Wilson.
One of the cables, which was classified by then Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Witajewksi, said, “Ellis openly uses his pulpit in one of Nassau's largest and fastest growing churches to advance the PLP's political agenda, and by allying himself so closely with Christie, has surpassed many of his more established (and perhaps more respectable) religious brethren in influence.”
The name at the end of that particular cable is Richard Blankenship, who at the time was United States ambassador to The Bahamas.
Ellis told The Guardian he was not well liked by Blankenship because he had made a statement about the involvement of diplomats in the local affairs of a country.
He said it arouses curiosity that the Americans want to know everything that is happening on every level in the Bahamas.
‘A CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE’
The Americans documented two meetings they say they had with Ellis at his church in Pinewood Gardens.
Ellis told The Nassau Guardian he recalled at least one of those meetings, but he remembered it being very informal with no detailed discussion about Christie or Ingraham.
According to one of the cables, on December 2, 2003, a U.S. diplomat paid a courtesy call on Ellis, described as “hard to pin down” and “charismatic”.
“During the nearly two-hour meeting, Ellis described the enterprise his parish has become,” the cable said.
“He also outlined his role as the local Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, of Bahamian politics — the one visit that all aspiring politicians must make in order to confirm their legitimacy.”
Ellis totally dismissed this claim when he spoke with The Nassau Guardian.
“Why would any sensible, logically thinking person make a statement like that?” he asked.
The cable added: “Ellis has come far, from a humble background, mentored and supported by prominent businessman Frankie Wilson, with whom he maintains a close personal and business relationship.”
The American diplomat wrote in 2003 that conventional wisdom holds that Ingraham had sealed his fate by displaying arrogance toward the religious leadership while he was prime minister.
“The electorate of the Bahamas is devout, and the church leaders refused to remain silent after the former PM had expressed views antithetical to religious conservatives, such as welcoming to port a cruise liner catering to gay clientele and advocating for constitutional reform targeted toward improving women’s rights,” the diplomat also wrote.
According to the diplomat who wrote the cable on the heels of the December 2, 2002 meeting, Ellis described “a strange ritual” whereby Christie had sought a meeting with him over a several week period as he was gearing up for the 2002 election campaign.
The cable said: “Ellis kept rebuffing [Christie’s] request, offering him only a 10 minute slot.
“Finally, however, Ellis offered [Christie] the opportunity to travel with him on a religious speaking tour in the U.S., promising that if [Christie] attended three of his sermons, he would be available to counsel [Christie] throughout the tour.
“Thus, the two men spent many intense hours together, during which time Ellis looked into [Christie’s] soul and concluded that [Christie] has religious inclinations, but is ‘not yet there’.”
But Ellis said this could not be further from the truth.
“I can’t look into a person’s soul,” he told The Nassau Guardian. “I’m not the savior of the world. Jesus is.”
The cable said though Christie was not one of Ellis’ regular parishioners, since the 2002 election, he had attended from time to time, as did all but three cabinet ministers.
An embassy official said in another cable after reportedly meeting with Ellis in late May 2002 that the bishop had expressed his desire for closer relations with the embassy, bemoaned his treatment in the press and offered a fascinating, intimate account of how he came to publicly endorse Christie in the last election.
The official said that as Wilson did in a separate meeting, Ellis unconvincingly denied having or wanting any real influence. Both men were described as “powerbrokers” as it regards the PLP — a claim Ellis laughed at as he denied it to the Guardian.
The embassy official described Ellis as one of the Bahamas’ most controversial figures.
The cable said: “He publicly endorsed Perry Christie during the 2002 campaign and reportedly told his congregation from the pulpit during a religious service that they must support Christie if they wished to remain members of his church.”
The diplomat also wrote that Ellis also held a huge religious revival featuring a renowned U.S. evangelist that was a magnet for criticism about the reported “greediness” of its fundraising appeal.
“Establishment religious figures now sometimes preface fund-raising remarks by noting that the funds ‘will not be used to build a vacation house in Bimini’ to distinguish themselves from the self-proclaimed bishop,” the cable said.
“The press hounds him constantly about his flamboyant personal lifestyle and open political preferences.
“Ellis was another protégé of (the late former prime minister) Sir Lynden Pindling, who identified him as a promising young man growing up on the small island of Bimini and brought him to Nassau to complete his education.”
The diplomat wrote that Ellis is affiliated with the Full Gospel Baptist Church headquartered in New Orleans, and is its “bishop” for international churches, theoretically having all Full Gospel Baptist churches in The Bahamas under his leadership.
“Prime Minister Christie has openly referred to Ellis as his spiritual adviser, and many Bahamians assume that his influence runs deep within the administration,” the cable said.
ENDORSING CHRISTIE
In the cable that came out of the May 2002 meeting with Bishop Ellis, the diplomat goes into amazing details about what was allegedly observed.
For instance, the cable said the embassy official was met by the first of Ellis’ personal assistants upon arrival, and was passed on to the second, who entertained him while Ellis finished a meeting with his seven associate pastors.
According to the cable, Ellis then received the official in his “nicely appointed, bordering on lavish, but not quite passing over into poor taste, office.”
“He was dressed in a loud magenta clerical shirt with gold and diamond cufflinks, a thick gold chain, several large gold rings and a gold Rolex watch,” the embassy official wrote.
“Ellis is a thin, energetic man of middling height, in his early 40s. He is married and has three adopted daughters.” (Ellis said he does not have three adopted daughters).
Ellis also strongly denied the American diplomat’s characterization of him.
In fact, he said he never owned a Rolex watch or diamond cufflinks in his life.
“Anybody who knows me knows that I am not given to much jewelry,” added Ellis, now 50.
When The Guardian visited him, he was wearing his gold bishop’s cross around his neck, his wedding band and a wristwatch (definitely not a Rolex).
In fact, Ellis said he shops for $10 watches at Bijoux Terner in the Atlanta airport and has one watch that is a little more expensive that was a gift from someone in the ministry.
Ellis said he wears his bishop’s ring only at special services — a fact later confirmed separately by his associate pastors and assistant who had not been privy to his earlier discussion with The Guardian.
They all said they have never seen the bishop with any Rolex watches and that he barely wears jewelry.
The cable alleges that Ellis described “the remarkable story about how he came to endorse Perry Christie in the 2002 elections.”
The diplomat wrote: “According to Ellis, he barely knew Christie before the run up to the 2002 election.
“After that time, he says Christie began seeking an appointment with him, saying he needed to speak with him for several hours.
“Ellis says that he kept putting Christie off, both because he didn’t have that time to spare and because he had a bad initial impression of him.”
According to the cable, Ellis said this bad opinion dated from the PLP leadership battle between Christie and Dr. Bernard Nottage.
“Nottage was a friend and former congregation member of Ellis and harbored a lot of ill will toward Christie because of his loss,” the diplomat wrote.
“Christie was persistent in his pursuit of Ellis, whose church membership has definite PLP leanings.”
The cable added: “Finally, according to Ellis, he agreed to take Christie along with him on an evangelical trip to the U.S., promising that if Christie attended all the services he preached at, Ellis would give him the time in between to listen to his appeal.
“Ellis said that when given the opportunity, Christie and Ellis spoke for 13 hours straight, about both secular and spiritual matters and that Ellis progressively became more convinced that Christie had been ‘sent by God’ to lead the Bahamas.
“The meeting ended, according to Ellis, in a scene reminiscent of the Biblical story of Samuel’s anointing of Saul, with Christie coming around the table they were seated at, going to his knees and requesting a blessing from Bishop Ellis.
“At the time, Ellis reported, the spirit came upon him and told him that he had to endorse Christie.”
The cable also said: “Ellis, on the one hand, denied having or wanting any political influence with Christie, but on the other hand went to great lengths to explain how close their relationship is and how often Christie calls on him for spiritual guidance.
“For example, Ellis recounted that Christie had presented him with the names of his Cabinet nominees before they were announced and asked him to pray over them and give his opinion.”
But Ellis told The Guardian that the official’s characterization of these events is “totally false”.
“First of all, I can’t say I had a bad impression of Mr. Christie before I met him,” Ellis said.
“But it is true I didn’t know him that well (prior to 2002). All I knew of him was his public life.
“As it relates to Mr. Christie seeking my anointing, that is totally false. I don’t remember him ever saying that to me and I don’t remember saying that to anybody.”
Ellis said it is true that Christie traveled with him more than once.
“The first trip he attended with me, he said he just wanted to talk with me and spend a little time with me,” the bishop said.
“My office let him know what my schedule was and when they told him of a particular trip that was going on he asked if he could go and I had no objections because people go on trips with me from time to time.
“I did say to him since he was a politician that I would prefer him not to travel alone with me, so he brought two of his other colleagues with him.”
Ellis said the trip was to Atlanta. He also recalled another occasion where Christie traveled with him to Baltimore, Maryland.
“I don’t see that as an unusual situation,” he said of the trips.
Ellis also suggested it was laughable to write that he spoke to Christie for 13 hours straight.
“Just think about that,” he said.
“I do know that in the 2002 election, I was very up front with my support for Mr. Christie. I don’t believe that if you have a conviction you have to be secretive about it.
“…I felt at that time this was the man to lead our country and I was proven to be right at the time.
“To say he was sent by God to lead the country, I don’t know if any of us could be that bold.”
Ellis also said he had no recollection of Christie ever getting on his knees to be anointed by him.
“If the person (the embassy official) wasn’t even clear about what I was wearing, they were putting things on me that were not on my person, then I don’t how much more attention to pay to anything that was said,” he said.
MULTIPLE ATTACKS
According to the May 2002 cable, Ellis claimed that ever since Mount Tabor started to grow and he began to be seen as a successful pastor, he has come under attack by some people, including other pastors, who are jealous of his success.
As a result, Ellis claims he has been unfairly vilified in the press, particularly the scandal-mongering tabloid The Punch, the diplomat wrote.
“Ellis says that during one stretch The Punch printed negative articles about him in 95 consecutive editions.
“…In addition, Ellis has received heavy criticism for the large salary he draws (reportedly a tax-free $180,000 a year), and his penchant for luxurious living.
“Recently, attention has focused on the impressive house he is building for himself in one of Nassau’s more exclusive neighborhoods, reportedly costing $1 million.
“Ellis claimed that the stories were exaggerated, but made no excuses for his lifestyle, implying it was only fitting for the pastor of such a large and thriving church.”
Again rejecting how he was characterized by the diplomat, Ellis told The Nassau Guardian, “I understand the role I am in…I’m always up for public scrutiny.
“I try to take it gracefully. I’ve never responded to any attacks in the media…When you’re in the public’s eye and when you’re in public life you have to be open to public scrutiny.”
The diplomat wrote in 2002, “As a consequence of his ongoing bad press, Ellis has vowed not to respond to any of the allegations against him.
“Doing so, he said, just legitimizes those allegations and gives them more life. Many in his congregation, he says, have disagreed with this policy and urge him to publicly lash out at his critics, which he admits is tempting, but he continues to maintain his silence, preferring to let the criticism pass.”
Ellis told the Guardian he has not collected a salary from Mount Tabor in 17 years.
“I give my services to Mount Tabor free of charge,” he said.
He said he earns money from speaking engagements, books and other products he offers.
“If Mount Tabor was paying me $180,000 I wouldn’t be going home,” he said with a laugh.
He stressed also that he never told his congregation to vote PLP or leave the church.
Ellis insists that the recording to this effect is a compilation of several sermons he delivered that were doctored by critics and sent to the media.
He said Christie never asked him to be his spiritual adviser and he never regarded himself as such.
Asked by The Nassau Guardian if he would be prepared to endorse Christie in the next general election, Ellis said it was not something he wished to discuss publicly as yet.
“Mr. Christie and I shared a wonderful relationship leading up to the (2002) election and thereafter,” he added.
“I don’t claim to have been any closer to him than any others.”
Ellis stressed that he has respect for all of the country’s leaders and noted that he was a part of a group of pastors who met with Ingraham last year to discuss important matters.
Jun 06, 2011
thenassauguardian
NG News Editor
thenassauguardian
candia@nasguard.com
A U.S. Embassy official claimed in a cable penned in 2003 that Bishop Neil C. Ellis — who is repeatedly described in diplomatic documents as Perry Christie’s spiritual adviser — remarked that the then prime minister was not a “true man of God” although he was trying to be religious.
The American also wrote that at a meeting with Ellis at his Mount Tabor Baptist Church, he also remarked that Hubert Ingraham, at the time - former prime minister, was definitely “not a man of God” even if he does attend church.
When we sat down with Ellis a few days ago at Mount Tabor to discuss the cables that mentioned his name, Ellis denied most of the claims documented by U.S. diplomats.
But it is the claim regarding his purported comment on Christie and Ingraham’s spirituality that he seemed most taken aback by.
“I don’t qualify to determine who is a man of God and who is not a man of God,” he told The Nassau Guardian.
“…For me to say I think Christie is a pretender would be very hypocritical of me because I’ve always said publicly and I would say again, I believe Perry Christie is one of the greatest humanitarians I’ve ever met.”
A read of at least two cables shows that while Ellis was growing his church, American diplomats were placing the spotlight on him and his relationship with Christie in a major way.
“Quite a bit of it surprises me,” said Ellis, when asked about what his general impression was of what the Americans attributed to him.
According to the cables, obtained by The Nassau Guardian through WikiLeaks, despite not being a member of the government, Ellis wielded considerable influence in the Christie administration, as did businessman Franklyn Wilson.
One of the cables, which was classified by then Deputy Chief of Mission Robert Witajewksi, said, “Ellis openly uses his pulpit in one of Nassau's largest and fastest growing churches to advance the PLP's political agenda, and by allying himself so closely with Christie, has surpassed many of his more established (and perhaps more respectable) religious brethren in influence.”
The name at the end of that particular cable is Richard Blankenship, who at the time was United States ambassador to The Bahamas.
Ellis told The Guardian he was not well liked by Blankenship because he had made a statement about the involvement of diplomats in the local affairs of a country.
He said it arouses curiosity that the Americans want to know everything that is happening on every level in the Bahamas.
‘A CONTROVERSIAL FIGURE’
The Americans documented two meetings they say they had with Ellis at his church in Pinewood Gardens.
Ellis told The Nassau Guardian he recalled at least one of those meetings, but he remembered it being very informal with no detailed discussion about Christie or Ingraham.
According to one of the cables, on December 2, 2003, a U.S. diplomat paid a courtesy call on Ellis, described as “hard to pin down” and “charismatic”.
“During the nearly two-hour meeting, Ellis described the enterprise his parish has become,” the cable said.
“He also outlined his role as the local Dixville Notch, New Hampshire, of Bahamian politics — the one visit that all aspiring politicians must make in order to confirm their legitimacy.”
Ellis totally dismissed this claim when he spoke with The Nassau Guardian.
“Why would any sensible, logically thinking person make a statement like that?” he asked.
The cable added: “Ellis has come far, from a humble background, mentored and supported by prominent businessman Frankie Wilson, with whom he maintains a close personal and business relationship.”
The American diplomat wrote in 2003 that conventional wisdom holds that Ingraham had sealed his fate by displaying arrogance toward the religious leadership while he was prime minister.
“The electorate of the Bahamas is devout, and the church leaders refused to remain silent after the former PM had expressed views antithetical to religious conservatives, such as welcoming to port a cruise liner catering to gay clientele and advocating for constitutional reform targeted toward improving women’s rights,” the diplomat also wrote.
According to the diplomat who wrote the cable on the heels of the December 2, 2002 meeting, Ellis described “a strange ritual” whereby Christie had sought a meeting with him over a several week period as he was gearing up for the 2002 election campaign.
The cable said: “Ellis kept rebuffing [Christie’s] request, offering him only a 10 minute slot.
“Finally, however, Ellis offered [Christie] the opportunity to travel with him on a religious speaking tour in the U.S., promising that if [Christie] attended three of his sermons, he would be available to counsel [Christie] throughout the tour.
“Thus, the two men spent many intense hours together, during which time Ellis looked into [Christie’s] soul and concluded that [Christie] has religious inclinations, but is ‘not yet there’.”
But Ellis said this could not be further from the truth.
“I can’t look into a person’s soul,” he told The Nassau Guardian. “I’m not the savior of the world. Jesus is.”
The cable said though Christie was not one of Ellis’ regular parishioners, since the 2002 election, he had attended from time to time, as did all but three cabinet ministers.
An embassy official said in another cable after reportedly meeting with Ellis in late May 2002 that the bishop had expressed his desire for closer relations with the embassy, bemoaned his treatment in the press and offered a fascinating, intimate account of how he came to publicly endorse Christie in the last election.
The official said that as Wilson did in a separate meeting, Ellis unconvincingly denied having or wanting any real influence. Both men were described as “powerbrokers” as it regards the PLP — a claim Ellis laughed at as he denied it to the Guardian.
The embassy official described Ellis as one of the Bahamas’ most controversial figures.
The cable said: “He publicly endorsed Perry Christie during the 2002 campaign and reportedly told his congregation from the pulpit during a religious service that they must support Christie if they wished to remain members of his church.”
The diplomat also wrote that Ellis also held a huge religious revival featuring a renowned U.S. evangelist that was a magnet for criticism about the reported “greediness” of its fundraising appeal.
“Establishment religious figures now sometimes preface fund-raising remarks by noting that the funds ‘will not be used to build a vacation house in Bimini’ to distinguish themselves from the self-proclaimed bishop,” the cable said.
“The press hounds him constantly about his flamboyant personal lifestyle and open political preferences.
“Ellis was another protégé of (the late former prime minister) Sir Lynden Pindling, who identified him as a promising young man growing up on the small island of Bimini and brought him to Nassau to complete his education.”
The diplomat wrote that Ellis is affiliated with the Full Gospel Baptist Church headquartered in New Orleans, and is its “bishop” for international churches, theoretically having all Full Gospel Baptist churches in The Bahamas under his leadership.
“Prime Minister Christie has openly referred to Ellis as his spiritual adviser, and many Bahamians assume that his influence runs deep within the administration,” the cable said.
ENDORSING CHRISTIE
In the cable that came out of the May 2002 meeting with Bishop Ellis, the diplomat goes into amazing details about what was allegedly observed.
For instance, the cable said the embassy official was met by the first of Ellis’ personal assistants upon arrival, and was passed on to the second, who entertained him while Ellis finished a meeting with his seven associate pastors.
According to the cable, Ellis then received the official in his “nicely appointed, bordering on lavish, but not quite passing over into poor taste, office.”
“He was dressed in a loud magenta clerical shirt with gold and diamond cufflinks, a thick gold chain, several large gold rings and a gold Rolex watch,” the embassy official wrote.
“Ellis is a thin, energetic man of middling height, in his early 40s. He is married and has three adopted daughters.” (Ellis said he does not have three adopted daughters).
Ellis also strongly denied the American diplomat’s characterization of him.
In fact, he said he never owned a Rolex watch or diamond cufflinks in his life.
“Anybody who knows me knows that I am not given to much jewelry,” added Ellis, now 50.
When The Guardian visited him, he was wearing his gold bishop’s cross around his neck, his wedding band and a wristwatch (definitely not a Rolex).
In fact, Ellis said he shops for $10 watches at Bijoux Terner in the Atlanta airport and has one watch that is a little more expensive that was a gift from someone in the ministry.
Ellis said he wears his bishop’s ring only at special services — a fact later confirmed separately by his associate pastors and assistant who had not been privy to his earlier discussion with The Guardian.
They all said they have never seen the bishop with any Rolex watches and that he barely wears jewelry.
The cable alleges that Ellis described “the remarkable story about how he came to endorse Perry Christie in the 2002 elections.”
The diplomat wrote: “According to Ellis, he barely knew Christie before the run up to the 2002 election.
“After that time, he says Christie began seeking an appointment with him, saying he needed to speak with him for several hours.
“Ellis says that he kept putting Christie off, both because he didn’t have that time to spare and because he had a bad initial impression of him.”
According to the cable, Ellis said this bad opinion dated from the PLP leadership battle between Christie and Dr. Bernard Nottage.
“Nottage was a friend and former congregation member of Ellis and harbored a lot of ill will toward Christie because of his loss,” the diplomat wrote.
“Christie was persistent in his pursuit of Ellis, whose church membership has definite PLP leanings.”
The cable added: “Finally, according to Ellis, he agreed to take Christie along with him on an evangelical trip to the U.S., promising that if Christie attended all the services he preached at, Ellis would give him the time in between to listen to his appeal.
“Ellis said that when given the opportunity, Christie and Ellis spoke for 13 hours straight, about both secular and spiritual matters and that Ellis progressively became more convinced that Christie had been ‘sent by God’ to lead the Bahamas.
“The meeting ended, according to Ellis, in a scene reminiscent of the Biblical story of Samuel’s anointing of Saul, with Christie coming around the table they were seated at, going to his knees and requesting a blessing from Bishop Ellis.
“At the time, Ellis reported, the spirit came upon him and told him that he had to endorse Christie.”
The cable also said: “Ellis, on the one hand, denied having or wanting any political influence with Christie, but on the other hand went to great lengths to explain how close their relationship is and how often Christie calls on him for spiritual guidance.
“For example, Ellis recounted that Christie had presented him with the names of his Cabinet nominees before they were announced and asked him to pray over them and give his opinion.”
But Ellis told The Guardian that the official’s characterization of these events is “totally false”.
“First of all, I can’t say I had a bad impression of Mr. Christie before I met him,” Ellis said.
“But it is true I didn’t know him that well (prior to 2002). All I knew of him was his public life.
“As it relates to Mr. Christie seeking my anointing, that is totally false. I don’t remember him ever saying that to me and I don’t remember saying that to anybody.”
Ellis said it is true that Christie traveled with him more than once.
“The first trip he attended with me, he said he just wanted to talk with me and spend a little time with me,” the bishop said.
“My office let him know what my schedule was and when they told him of a particular trip that was going on he asked if he could go and I had no objections because people go on trips with me from time to time.
“I did say to him since he was a politician that I would prefer him not to travel alone with me, so he brought two of his other colleagues with him.”
Ellis said the trip was to Atlanta. He also recalled another occasion where Christie traveled with him to Baltimore, Maryland.
“I don’t see that as an unusual situation,” he said of the trips.
Ellis also suggested it was laughable to write that he spoke to Christie for 13 hours straight.
“Just think about that,” he said.
“I do know that in the 2002 election, I was very up front with my support for Mr. Christie. I don’t believe that if you have a conviction you have to be secretive about it.
“…I felt at that time this was the man to lead our country and I was proven to be right at the time.
“To say he was sent by God to lead the country, I don’t know if any of us could be that bold.”
Ellis also said he had no recollection of Christie ever getting on his knees to be anointed by him.
“If the person (the embassy official) wasn’t even clear about what I was wearing, they were putting things on me that were not on my person, then I don’t how much more attention to pay to anything that was said,” he said.
MULTIPLE ATTACKS
According to the May 2002 cable, Ellis claimed that ever since Mount Tabor started to grow and he began to be seen as a successful pastor, he has come under attack by some people, including other pastors, who are jealous of his success.
As a result, Ellis claims he has been unfairly vilified in the press, particularly the scandal-mongering tabloid The Punch, the diplomat wrote.
“Ellis says that during one stretch The Punch printed negative articles about him in 95 consecutive editions.
“…In addition, Ellis has received heavy criticism for the large salary he draws (reportedly a tax-free $180,000 a year), and his penchant for luxurious living.
“Recently, attention has focused on the impressive house he is building for himself in one of Nassau’s more exclusive neighborhoods, reportedly costing $1 million.
“Ellis claimed that the stories were exaggerated, but made no excuses for his lifestyle, implying it was only fitting for the pastor of such a large and thriving church.”
Again rejecting how he was characterized by the diplomat, Ellis told The Nassau Guardian, “I understand the role I am in…I’m always up for public scrutiny.
“I try to take it gracefully. I’ve never responded to any attacks in the media…When you’re in the public’s eye and when you’re in public life you have to be open to public scrutiny.”
The diplomat wrote in 2002, “As a consequence of his ongoing bad press, Ellis has vowed not to respond to any of the allegations against him.
“Doing so, he said, just legitimizes those allegations and gives them more life. Many in his congregation, he says, have disagreed with this policy and urge him to publicly lash out at his critics, which he admits is tempting, but he continues to maintain his silence, preferring to let the criticism pass.”
Ellis told the Guardian he has not collected a salary from Mount Tabor in 17 years.
“I give my services to Mount Tabor free of charge,” he said.
He said he earns money from speaking engagements, books and other products he offers.
“If Mount Tabor was paying me $180,000 I wouldn’t be going home,” he said with a laugh.
He stressed also that he never told his congregation to vote PLP or leave the church.
Ellis insists that the recording to this effect is a compilation of several sermons he delivered that were doctored by critics and sent to the media.
He said Christie never asked him to be his spiritual adviser and he never regarded himself as such.
Asked by The Nassau Guardian if he would be prepared to endorse Christie in the next general election, Ellis said it was not something he wished to discuss publicly as yet.
“Mr. Christie and I shared a wonderful relationship leading up to the (2002) election and thereafter,” he added.
“I don’t claim to have been any closer to him than any others.”
Ellis stressed that he has respect for all of the country’s leaders and noted that he was a part of a group of pastors who met with Ingraham last year to discuss important matters.
Jun 06, 2011
thenassauguardian
It is now time for Bahamian politicians to take note... Remember one is judged by the "friends" one keeps... Distance yourselves from known criminals in the run up to the 2012 general election
Don't make the criminal your bedfellow
tribune242 editorial
LAST WEEK -
Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham gave politicians on all sides of the political divide sound advice: Distance yourselves from known criminals in the run up to the 2012 general election, he said.
Every five years, the sewers of humanity disgorge disreputables seen only at election time. Suddenly from being Nobodies, they assume airs of Somebodies. Strangely, like bees to honey, they are always seen crawling around election headquarters and rubbing elbows cosily with politicians. They seem to have an inbuilt radar as to which party has the most funds to disperse -- and there they are ready for any task, be it underhand or legitimate -- as long as the upended palms are suitably greased.
Mr Ingraham has said that although he knows that both political parties want to win the next election, keeping company with lawbreakers to gain votes is a practice that should be stopped.
Opposition Leader Perry Christie had his own embarrassing moments during his election campaign when a known drug dealer at Eleuthera boasted that it was he who had paid for all the PLP election paraphernalia for the rally that particular night, and organised the motorcade leading up to the rally. In the background we heard mutterings from supporters that this man of dubious repute was the only man who had Mr Christie's ear and knew of his plans while at the island. Apparently, if reports were to be believed, even the noses of Mr Christie's generals were out of joint.
Also over time -- ever since the drug years of the seventies/eighties -- drug dealers have aligned themselves with the PLP and come away with the erroneous belief -- at least it was erroneous by the time Mr Christie headed the party -- that the PLP was their party under whose umbrella they could expect protection. Tribune reporters often heard during the 2002 election campaign, especially at Eleuthera, that the drug dealers had their fast boats ready to get back into the trade as soon as the PLP won the election. Mr Christie later made it clear that it certainly was not going to happen under his watch.
The FNM also had a nasty scrape during the seventies in the Barry Major murder case -- known as the Perpall Tract murder -- November 17, 1970. The late Sir Lynden Pindling read a statement to the House, mysteriously given 11 years after the murder by someone close to the event who suddenly had total recall of what he remembered being told at the time of the murder. He alleged that Major had tried to "blackmail the chief" -- the late Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield -- and Mr Whitfield had given "the boys" the go ahead to "fix him up." Major was shot, and the election mayhem that was started by the PLP with their "goon squads" at election time in the late sixties, continuing into the seventies was all blamed on the FNM. According to the informant, after the murder, Wendell "Red" Burrows, who two years later was hanged for the crime, was given $15,000 to $20,000 to disappear in the US until things quieted down on the home front. In the meantime "the organisation continued and we kept up with our criminal acts of burning and the like," said the questionable informant, who at the time claimed he was FNM.
One day about that time one of "the boys" came to The Tribune trying to get us to publish what Sir Lynden eventually had to do himself from the floor of the House. They admitted that Sir Lynden had sent the information. Sir Lynden obviously wanted clean hands. He wanted The Tribune, as part of its investigative reporting, to publish what eventually he had to read himself in the House. We refused and quickly showed the criminals the door. We felt that if Sir Lynden wanted a smear campaign it was his to handle.
The Tribune never believed a word of what was said in that statement as we saw the plot building behind the scenes from the day of the murder. This was a case of politicians getting too close to criminals and being destroyed by that contact.
Supt. John Crawley, a respected police officer, had investigated the murder of Barry Major. The day after the murder he told us that it was a simple case of a drug deal gone wrong. To the end he maintained that it was not political and that no politicians were involved. However, during the election of that year Major hung around Sir Cecil's election headquarters. His death was turned into a political fiasco, and Sir Cecil was smeared by association. It was a convenient turn of events at the time because the heat was on the PLP for all the criminal mayhem created by their "goons" a few years earlier. The murder of Barry Major was a convenient way of turning the tables on the FNM.
One only has to look at the precarious position the Jamaican government is now in with the politicians and the gangsters being perceived as a team for so long that eventually the day came when "the President"- Christopher "Dudus" Coke, now in a US federal prison on drug charges -- almost became more powerful than the Jamaican government and its prime minister. When all the evidence is out in this case the reputation of Bruce Golding's government will probably be in tatters. Former Jamaican prime minister Edward Seaga, when asked after his government was defeated at the polls, what he most regretted during his administration admitted that leading the funeral procession of strong man Jim Brown was his biggest mistake. Jim Brown, father of "Dudus," headed the Shower Posse gangsters and was don of Tivoli Gardens. Dudus inherited his father's fiefdom and developed the criminal enterprise to such heights that in the end the US was demanding his extradition as the "world's most dangerous drug dealer."
It is now time for Bahamian politicians to take note. Remember one is judged by the "friends" one keeps.
June 06, 2011
tribune242 editorial
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)