Peter Nygard is having too much to say in the business of the Bahamian people in The Bahamas

Pastor Wants Government Answer On Nygard Land

By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

AN INFLUENTIAL church pastor is urging the government to make its position known as to whether billionaire Peter Nygard’s request to lease acres of Crown land will be granted.

 

Rev C B Moss, who is also a part of the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay, insisted that answers are needed over the application especially as hundreds of Bahamians have waited for years to receive such an approval.

 

He was speaking to The Tribune after a video of himself engaged in an argument with Mr Nygard outside Mount Olive Church was posted on the internet. In it, Mr Nygard is accompanied by an entourage to the Meeting Street church claiming that he was seeking to squash the bad blood that existed between them.

 

However, Rev Moss suggested that his only issue was that the undertakings at Nygard Cay were robbing Bahamians of that to which they are entitled.

 

“Mr Nygard,” he said, “is having too much to say in the business of the Bahamian people. If he made a request to lease the land, he should wait and see what the government will do, but it seems as though he is badgering the government.

 

“One thing is certain, the government of the Bahamas needs to state to Bahamians what they will do regarding what belongs to us. Do you know how many people have made requests for Crown land and years later, and hundreds of people later, they haven’t heard one thing?”

 

Mr Nygard also suggested in the video that Rev Moss and Lyford Cay billionaire Louis Bacon were friends, which was the reason for Rev Moss’ opposition to the continuing development at the Cay.

 

But Rev Moss assured The Tribune that he has never met Mr Bacon nor has he ever advocated anything on his behalf.

 

“Nygard is all about bad mouthing people and that is anyone who goes against him. They are vilified. People all over social media networks have been tearing into me.

 

“It is all a smoke screen with people representing the Coalition made criminal.”

 

On its website, the Coalition to Protect Clifton Bay have claimed that Simms Point, or Nygard Cay, had allegedly “almost doubled in size” from 3.25 acres in 1984 – when Mr Nygard bought it – to 6.1 acres by 2012.

 

“This accreted Crown land reputedly has a value of between $25 to $30 million,” the Coalition alleged, suggesting that the land reclamation had negatively damaged the surrounding marine habitat and environment.

 

July 12, 2014

 

Tribune 242

 

Caribbean Blog International

 

From July 10, 1973 to July 10, 2013... ...Reflection on The Bahamas 40 Years of Political Independence from Great Britain

Cecil, Lynden and Milo

By Philip C. Galanis
pgalanis@gmail.com

“Pressing onward, march together, to a common loftier goal…”

 On Wednesday, July 10, 2013, The Bahamas will celebrate 40 years of political independence from Great Britain. This week, as we reflect on the developments in the country over the last 40 years, we would like to Consider This... what would three giants who were intimately involved in the Bahamian march to freedom say about this day? Imagine these three giants, Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, Sir Lynden O. Pindling and Sir Milo B. Butler, looking down from where their spirits are resting and marveling at the progress of these past 40 years. We can imagine the conversation going somewhat like this:

Lynden: I see that the fellas are getting ready to celebrate the 40th anniversary of independence. My, how time has flown!

Milo: It surely has. It seems just like yesterday that we were all fighting for majority rule. Lynden, you and Cecil were very young when I ran for the House of Assembly in July 1938. I believed that the Western seat was safe because it was in a largely black constituency and was traditionally won by non-white candidates. I ran against Harry Oakes, the multimillionaire.

Cecil: Milo, I heard that that was a rough campaign because the white Bay Street oligarchy worked tirelessly to derail you.

Milo: That’s right. They tried every trick in the book to win. First the Royal Bank of Canada, under pressure from the Bay Street Boys, suddenly cut off my credit. Then, on Election Day, Oakes’ representatives distributed money and liquor in a shameless – and successful – attempt to buy votes, right in front of the police who were right there to prevent any disturbances. When it became apparent that I was going to lose, I promised to lodge a protest against the blatant bribery. When the polls closed, a drunken and disorderly mob attacked the police, hurling missiles that injured two officers and two of my supporters were arrested, convicted and jailed for six months.

Lynden: But, Milo, that was a defining moment because the next day you and 40 of your supporters went downtown to the office of the colonial secretary to voice your grievances, causing the colonial secretary to order an investigation of the whole matter. As a result of your petition to the governor calling for a secret ballot, the creation of an Election Court of Appeal and a fairer representation of the black population on all public boards and in the civil service, great changes were to come.

Cecil: Milo, it was your actions that convinced Governor Dundas that the secret ballot was the very least that should be done to defuse the situation. He announced plans to dissolve the House of Assembly and threatened to call a general election in support of the secret ballot. Of course, the members of the House were afraid that the issue of color would be predominant in such an election, so they decided to take a softer approach. In June 1939, they passed an act for a five-year trial period for the secret ballot, but only in New Providence. The Out Islands were where only one third of the voting population resided but they returned two thirds of the members of the House, so Bay Street was very reluctant to tamper with what was, for them, a winning situation. The secret ballot, therefore, did not come to those Out Islands until 1949, 10 years later.

Milo: But that was just the beginning of the long, hard-fought battle for majority rule. It took the Burma Road Riots, the General Strike and Lynden and me throwing the mace and the hour glass out of the House of Assembly to get Bay Street’s attention. We even had to go to the United Nations to make our case against unfair election practices that kept Bay Street in office for so long.

Cecil: And then our prayers were answered by the people on January 10, 1967 when majority rule was finally realized. And what a glorious day that was! We all celebrated with the people.

Lynden: True, but that was the beginning of so many other challenges. Cecil, it wasn’t long before we started to fight among ourselves. You and the other seven left us and formed the Free PLP and then the FNM. The biggest battle that we fought though was based on our decision to seek political independence.

Milo: And what a battle that was! It nearly destroyed our march to a common loftier goal. I remember in 1968, Roland Symonette said that independence was not in the best interest of the people of the Bahamas Islands. Geoffrey Johnstone, the leader of the UBP, said that there was no enthusiasm for independence anywhere. And, Cecil, in May 1971, you told a large gathering that independence now would only serve to break this country into small groups and that there would be countries like Abaco, which would not want to associate with the rest of The Bahamas simply because there had not been sufficient preparation.

Cecil: That is true. I also said that independence should not be sought then, nor any time before the next two general elections. We believed that independence should be a unifying force among Bahamians, not a dividing force among our people.

Lynden: It’s interesting that the newspapers also opposed independence. In September 1970, a Tribune editorial announced that every political organization in the colony outside of the PLP was opposed to any plan for moving into independence. Then, in January 1971, the Tribune editor also wrote that an independent Bahamas would become a threat to the security of the United States and as such, a menace to the Western Hemisphere and that the whole world would become embroiled in conflicts that might arise from an independent Bahamas.

Milo: Yea, Lynden, they always hated you. And The Guardian also opposed independence and wrote that the assumption of independence seemed nothing less than an act of madness. It maintained that at this particular period, with the government still in a state of immaturity and myopia, with the economy still sick, with a substantial amount of investment capital having fled to safer climates, it was hardly the time to be talking of independence.

Lynden: Even some in the church opposed independence. Rev. Murillo Bonaby, pastor of Christ the King Anglican Church, said that the church was scared stiff of independence. But the voices against independence were drowned out by the results of the September 19, 1972 general election when a vote for the PLP signified a vote for independence. The PLP won 29 of 38 seats – the people were loudly and clearly stating their support for independence. At last, once the people supported independence, we all attended the Constitutional Conference in London in December 1972 with a determination to draft the best constitution for our new nation. I have to say that during my entire Parliamentary career, the single most satisfying event was the lowering of the Union Jack and the hoisting of the Bahamian flag at midnight on July 10, 1973.

Cecil: And I have to agree that the constitution has served us well these past 40 years. Despite our intense disagreements and bitter political battles, we have done well as an independent country. I regret not being there on August 19, 1992 when my party won the election. But Lynden, I was happy to see that your erstwhile son, Hubert (Ingraham), finally had an opportunity to make some important changes we had fought long and hard for over many years.

Lynden: I am also pleased to see how well Perry (Christie) led my party to victory in 2002 and again in 2012. I believe we should all be proud of the legacy we left. I am disappointed, though, that, while we achieved political independence for our people, greater economic independence and empowerment of our people still eludes us. That must be the next major challenge for the fellas we left behind.

Milo: True, but look at what has been accomplished in the last 40 years. We established a national insurance program, a College (soon to be University) of The Bahamas, a Central Bank and a defence force and so many other institutions that serve our people. And look at the vast number of Bahamians we educated in so many professional and skilled occupations. Can’t wait to see what will happen in the next 10 years as we approach the 50th anniversary of independence.

Lynden: I agree. You know, when you look at it, we really did build a firm foundation that, year after year, ensures that the nation we left behind will undoubtedly continue pressing onward, and marching together, to a common loftier goal.

• Philip C. Galanis is the managing partner of HLB Galanis & Co., Chartered Accountants, Forensic & Litigation Support Services. He served 15 years in Parliament. Please send your comments to pgalanis@gmail.com.

July 08, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Constitutional Commission Recommendations - 8 July, 2013

In August 2012, the Prime Minister of The Bahamas appointed a Commission with the following broad mandate: “To conduct a comprehensive review of the Constitution of The Bahamas, and to recommend changes to the Constitution in advance of the 40th anniversary of Independence next year. These changes will require a national referendum to be held in due course so that the will of the people can be determined on the matter.”

The following are a list of recommendations by the Commission issued on the 8th July 2013.

Enactment of the Constitution

The Commission recommends that no change should be made to the method of the enactment of the Constitution at this point, especially having regard to the very limited number of constitutional amendments proposed. So called ‘patriation’ would be of symbolic value only and necessitate a costly (and uncertain) referendum, as the wholesale repeal and reenactment of the Constitution would require the observance of all the entrenchment devices. When the time comes to consider more fundamental changes—what the Commission describes as the meta‐constitutional issues—then it would be appropriate to consider the question of enacting a new Constitution.

The Preamble

The Commission recommends that the Preamble be retained in its current form and that no amendments be made to its content at the present time. The Commission considers the preamble to be of “inestimable historical and symbolic value”—to adopt the formulation of the Adderley‐Tynes Commission—and while non‐justiciable it may currently represent the most indigenous feature of the Constitution. Any perceived deficiencies might be met by the inclusion of directive principles of State.

General Constitutional Features

(a) The Constitution (or alternatively an Act of Parliament) should declare the relationship between international and domestic law, and in particular specify the roles of the Executive and Parliament in relation to the negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties, and their transformation into domestic law. On balance, the Commission feels that an ordinary Act of Parliament might be the preferable option.

The Commission recommends that the existing system of entrenchment of the most important provisions of the Constitution should be retained, except that there should be a uniform parliamentary majority of ¾ plus the referendum for altering any of these provisions. However, the other entrenched provisions that relate to executive or administrative functions need only be secured by a parliamentary majority of ¾ and should not be encumbered by a referendum requirement.

Founding Provisions

(a) The Commission recommends that the supreme law clause, as the basis for the review of the constitutionality of legislation, should be strengthened by providing for a ‘Constitutional Court’ (constituted by the Chief Justice and at least one other justice) to hear complex constitutional questions arising on magisterial references, as well as constitutional questions referred by the Attorney General. This does not require any alteration to the Constitution, but a change to the Supreme Court Act or Rules of Court. There should also be a provision for universal review by the citizen (i.e., on non‐Bill‐of‐Rights clauses), subject to persons establishing that they have a sufficient interest to bring the action.

(b) A declaration of the land and sea areas of The Bahamas should be a part of the Constitution, with further details contained in a schedule. That schedule should be amenable to amendment by the Governor‐General by Order to take account of any delimitations in maritime boundaries that may be concluded between The Bahamas and neighbouring states.

(c) The principal national symbols and essentials of national identity (coat‐of‐arms, national anthem, national flag, pledge of allegiance) should be referred to in the Constitution, and displayed in a schedule to the Constitution.

(d) The Constitution should declare English as the official language of The Bahamas.

Citizenship

(a) The Commission recommends that all of the Articles of the Constitution which provide for the acquisition of citizenship based on birth, descent, or marriage should be recast in gender‐neutral language (by means of appropriate drafting formulae), with the goal of putting Bahamian men and women on an equal footing with respect to the acquisition and transmission of nationality.

(b) Article 14(1), which erects the common law rule of filius nullius, (child of no father) should be deleted to remove any difference in treatment attributable to the marital status of the parent. This may necessitate a review of other pieces of legislation for constitutional conformity as a result of this amendment.

(c) Bahamian men and women should have the equal ability to transmit citizenship to their foreign spouses under Article 10, except that there should be provisions (preferably in the Nationality and Immigration Acts) to guard against marriages of convenience.

(d) With respect to the position of children born in The Bahamas after Independence neither of whose parents is a Bahamian (Article 7), the Commission recommends that this be the subject of further study, for the reasons set out in the body of the Report. To achieve this, the Commission recommends the appointment of a commission to consider further questions relating to nationality and the basis on which nationality should be acquired by children born in The Bahamas to non‐Bahamian parents.

(e) Moreover, it would recommend that the principles set out below in the body of the Report (at paragraph 14.51) could guide the approach.

(f) Appropriate amendments should also be included to ensure that those persons born to Bahamians outside The Bahamas as well as persons born to non‐Bahamians in The Bahamas would not be rendered stateless. The ability of a Bahamian father or mother to transmit their citizenship to their children born overseas should be a right not conditioned on how the parent acquired citizenship. Thus, the proviso to article 8 “…otherwise that by virtue of this Article or Article 3(2) of this Constitution” should be deleted.

(g) Consideration should be to given to deleting the procedural temporal requirement at both Article 7 to apply within 12 months after attaining the age of 18 and in Article 9 to apply after 18 but before 21 to be registered, for the reasons given in the body of the Report. In any event, the appropriate amendment to Article 8 to make it applicable to both men and women would eliminate the need for Article 9.

(h) The situation described under Article 6, which provides for children born in The Bahamas to acquire citizenship if either parent is Bahamian, while not discriminatory on its face, has been interpreted by the courts in a way that discriminates against men. The solution would be to repeal subparagraph 1 of Article 14 (which assimilates the father of a child born out of wedlock to the status of the mother), and therefore the Courts would be required to give full effect to the natural meaning of “either parent” in Article 6 (subject to proof of paternity in the case of men). The Commission recommends the deletion of sub‐paragraph 1 of Article 14.

(i) The position with respect to dual citizenship or nationality should be stated, and in particular persons who are eligible for Bahamian citizenship should not be denied registration simply because they possess another nationality. Renunciation of another citizenship should also not be made a condition‐precedent to the grant of citizenship. However, a register should be retained of Bahamian citizens with dual nationality.

(j) The Minister’s discretion to refuse a request for registration, which under section 16 of The Bahamas Nationality Act is declared to be non‐reviewable, should be subject to review by the Courts.

(k) There should also be a statutory, independent Immigration Board or Committee with the responsibility to consider applications for citizenship and asylum requests, and make recommendations. These should be ratified by Cabinet unless there are substantial policy or national security considerations to override the recommendations.

(l) A proviso should be added to Article 7, along the lines suggested below, to exclude any nationality entitlement arising in respect of children born to foreign diplomats serving in The Bahamas: “Provided that a person shall not be entitled to be registered as a citizen of The Bahamas by virtue of this provision if neither of his parents is a citizen of The Bahamas and his mother or father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded the envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to The Bahamas”

Fundamental Rights

(a) The Commission recommends that the constitutional right to trial by jury when charged with an indictable offence be dis-entrenched, and trial without jury should be available under circumstances prescribed by law.

(b) Consideration should be given to expanding Article 23 to expressly include a reference to freedom of the press and the media.

(c) Article 24, which grants a right of “protection of freedom of assembly and association”, should be expanded to constitutionalize the right to vote in general (and local) elections and referenda.

(d) The Commission recommends that “sex” be included in the definition of “discriminatory” in Article 26(3) as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination.

(e) As a corollary to the recommendation at 24, the Commission also proposes that an amendment be made to Article 26(4) to provide that no law which makes provisions prohibiting same-sex marriage or which provides for such marriages to be unlawful or void shall be held to be inconsistent with the Constitution.

(f) While it is essential for the protection of human dignity that all vulnerable groups be protected from discrimination, we do not think this necessarily requires expanding the list of grounds of discrimination in Article 26. Such protection could be accomplished effectively by providing for specific, limited protection under ordinary legislation (i.e., the Employment Act, Disabilities (Bill).

(g) Social and economic rights should be acknowledged in the Constitution in a way that does not make them enforceable, but imposes a moral and political obligation on the state to pursue such goals for the general welfare.

(h) Article 29 of the Constitution dealing with declarations of emergency should be amended to amplify the circumstances in which a proclamation should be made and to provide for the geographical limitation of such a declaration.

The Commission also recommends that there should be a procedure, such as that contained under the 1969 Constitution, for an impartial and independent tribunal established by law and presided over by the Chief Justice to review emergency detentions.

(i) An amendment should be made to the Constitution to enable the implementation of the death penalty in appropriate cases, by precluding constitutional challenges based on criteria developed in the case law.

Environmental Rights

(a) The Commission recommends that the Constitution should recognize a right to environmental protection in general terms, although more specific provisions for environmental protection should be left to primary and secondary legislation, such as an Environmental Protection or Management

Act.

(b) Further, the Commission is aware that there is a draft Environmental Protection Act, which apparently has been under consideration for several years, and which is specifically intended to address most of the environmental concerns articulated. The Government is urged to take the necessary steps to engage in public consultation on the Bill before introduction in Parliament for debate and eventual enactment, and to treat this as a matter of high priority.

The Governor‐General/Head‐of‐State

(a) The Commission does not at this time recommend that there should be any change in the Queen as the Head of State and the Office of Governor‐General as the representative of the Queen under a constitutional monarchy. However, the Government should embark on a process of public education to prepare the public for a possible change to a republican form of Government at some point in the future. Should such a change be made, it would require amendments to the Constitution providing for a non‐executive national President, as Head‐of‐State, to discharge the functions formerly vested in the Governor General, with the Prime Minister and Cabinet continuing to exercise executive powers.

(b) The provision of the Constitution which permits the Chief Justice and the President of the Senate to serve as acting Governor‐General should be deleted to avoid potential conflicts of interest. Deputies should be appointed from among eminent citizens or retired parliamentarians to fill any vacancies in this office (as is already provided for in the Constitution).

(c) The Commission does not recommend the appointment of a standing Deputy Governor General, as there has been no indication that the appointment of deputies does not work well in practice. In any event, this would lead to duplication of public officers, with the attendant increase in administrative costs and bureaucracy.

(d) The oath of the Governor‐General and those of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers, Judges and other senior officials should be changed to include a declaration of allegiance to the Constitution and people of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.

(e) To remove all doubt it should be declared that the Governor General (Head of State) shall be a Bahamian citizen.

Parliament

(a) The Commission does not recommend the abolition of the Senate, as was called for by a number of contributors. On the contrary, the Commission recommends the enlargement of the composition of the Senate and the manner in which senators are appointed to make it a more representative body, while ensuring the Government always maintains the majority necessary to achieve its legislative agenda.

(b) The number of senators should be increased to allow for representation based on geographical considerations and other interests.

(c) With respect to changing the age requirement for the Senate, the Commission recommends that the qualifying age limit of 30 be retained, based on a vote of the majority of the members.

(d) The Commission does not recommend the change of the electoral system to a mixed system of first‐past‐the post and proportional representation in the House of Assembly (a mixed‐member proportional model (MMP), as the experience of other countries does not indicate any huge democratic dividends over the first‐past the‐post system.

(e) The Commission does not recommend that any limitations be placed on the privileges and immunities of members of the House of Assembly and Senate. However, citizens who are the subject of any unwarranted personal attacks should have the right to respond from the Bar of either House.

(f) The Constitution should be amended to create a truly independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, with constitutional autonomy and protection similar to the other service Commissions, which would replace the Constituencies Commission and assume responsibility for the conduct and regulation of elections. Judges, parliamentarians and public officers should be ineligible for service.

(g) The office currently styled Parliamentary Commissioner should be transformed into a Chief Electoral Officer, who should be ex officio a member of the Commission.

(h) The Commission recommends that Parliament make laws for the establishment, regulation, and funding of political parties, to ensure transparency and accountability, which should also come under the superintendence of the Electoral and Boundaries Commission.

(i) Consideration should be given to the establishment of a mechanism for Members of Parliament to be accountable to their constituents for the performance of their duties and accountable to Parliament with respect to their conduct and personal integrity (the latter extending to senior public servants).

 There should be agencies (such as an Integrity Commission) to investigate and take actions against parliamentarians who clearly fail to perform their duties, or violate the trust and ethics of their office.

(j) The power of the Prime Minister to effectively dissolve Parliament at any time in the run up to general elections should be modified by a procedure which requires that the Prime Minister give at least nine months’ notice before calling a general election.

(k) The Commission does not recommend that the procedure for determining the member who commands the support of the majority of a party in the House (or the majority of those in opposition to the Government) should be codified. This is a matter that should continue to operate as a constitutional convention.

(l) The office of Clerk to Parliament and Deputy Clerk, with responsibility for the Senate, should be established by the Constitution as public offices, independent of the Executive. The Commission also recommends the establishment of the Office of Chief Parliamentary Counsel, responsible for drafting of legislation and advising the Speaker of the House on the rules regarding the enactment of legislation.

Executive Powers

(a) The Commission recommends that there should be a limit on the size of Cabinet, and would suggest that the upper limit should be 15. It also makes the point that it does not seem to be the intention of Article 72(2) that every minister should be a member of the Cabinet although the historical practice in The Bahamas has always been to treat ministers as automatic members of the cabinet.

(b) The Commission recommends the establishment of a number of standing parliamentary committees empowered to have oversight of various aspects of government affairs and to act as a check on the powers of the Executive.

(c) The Commission recommends that the powers of appointment of the Prime Minister be reduced by transferring some of those powers to the Governor‐General in his or her own right, or to other permanent commissions whose independence and security of tenure members are already secured by the Constitution.

d) Limits should be placed on the number of MPs and Senators who could be appointed as Parliamentary Secretaries (pursuant to article 81 of the Constitution) and Ministers of State (junior ministers). The potentially overlapping roles of Parliamentary Secretaries and junior ministers should also be clarified. As it stands, there is no constitutional provision which speaks to the appointment of junior ministers.

(e) The Commission does not recommend placing any term limits on the tenure of the Prime Minister.

(f) The Commission supports the recommendation to remove the responsibility for criminal prosecutions from a political Attorney General and transfer it to a Director of Public Prosecutions with constitutional autonomy and independence in respect of prosecutions.  Further, the proposed amendment creating the office of the DPP should be entrenched.

(g) The Commission recommends the creation of the Office of Public Defender. This should be complemented with a suitable legal aid system. Both of these initiatives, however, could be accomplished by ordinary legislation.

(h) The Commission recommends that local government be given constitutional recognition. A specific part of the Chapter on the Executive should set out the system of local government, assign the responsibilities between central and local government, and grant a greater degree of autonomy.

Judicature

(a) The Commission agrees that the necessary steps should be taken to correct the anomalies in the Court structure with regard to the rebranding of the Supreme Court as the High Court, which along with the Court of Appeal would come under a Supreme Court of Judicature presided over by the Chief Justice as head of the judiciary.

(b) The Commission recommends retaining the existing retirement age for Justices of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal (respectively 65 and 68) but of making these an optional retirement age and raising the mandatory retirement age to 70 and 72 respectively, with no possibility for extension.

(c) The Commission recommends that both the Chief Justice and President of the Court of Appeal should always be Bahamians (as indeed they presently are).

(d) The Commission recommends that the provisions dealing with the appointment of magistrates should be dealt with in the Constitution under the Chapter on the Judicature. The magistracy should also be given a form of protection of tenure, not the same as superior court judges, but sufficient to achieve a constitutional guarantee of independence.

(e) The Commission does not recommend the abolition of appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council at this time. But it sees this as an inevitable event that must take place at some determined time in the future in the continuing journey towards full sovereignty.  We must also be cognizant that the imperative for this change might be driven by changes emanating from within the United Kingdom.

(f) The Commission does not recommend the elevation of the Industrial Tribunal into a branch of the Supreme Court. However, administratively, it should be placed under the Judicature and removed from the Department of Labour, and some form of tenure given to the President and Members.

The Public Service

(a) The Commission does not support the establishment of a separate Teaching Service Commission. It recommends instead the enlarging of the Public Service Commission and setting up divisions or sections to deal with specific sectors of the public service (e.g., Teaching Service Section). The specialist Commissions (Judicial and Legal Services Commission, Police Service Commission) should be retained, subject to the suggestion in respect of the Police Service Commission.

(b) The Commission recommends that consideration be given to reconstituting the Police Service Commission into a Security Commission, which will be responsible for the Police (Fire Services) and the Prison Service. This will ease some of the burden on the Public Service Commission and allow it to devote additional resources to categories such as teachers.

(c) The Commission recommends that the Royal Bahamas Defence Force, which is a military organization, continues to be governed by its Act and Regulations for the time being, and remain under the administrative control of the National Security Council.

(d) The Commission recommends the establishment of the Office of Ombudsman, but it is not of the opinion that this Office needs to be a constitutional one and can be created by statute.

(e) The Commission recommends the establishment of the office of Contractor General as a public office, with security of tenure, along the lines of the Auditor General. Such a person would be responsible for overseeing the award of Government contracts and ensuring that public funds are expended fairly and that value is received for money expended.

Finance

(a) The independence of the Office of the Auditor General should be strengthened by making provisions for the independent funding of that office out of the Consolidated Fund and for the appointment and control of the staff of the Auditor General’s Office to be vested in the occupier of that office.

(b) The Public Accounts Committee should be elevated to direct Constitutional standing by enshrining that body and its mandate in the Constitution. The Constitution should also declare the relationship of this body with the Auditor General.

(c) Article 136(6) should be amended to provide for the accounts of the Auditor General’s Department to be audited by an independent firm, appointed by the Minister in consultation with the Public Accounts Committee.

(d) The Commission does not recommend including a clause in the Constitution requiring the Government to maintain a balanced budget.

To review the entire report of the Constitutional Commission go to our website at: www.halsburylawchambers.com

 

COMMONWEALTH OF THE BAHAMAS

 

Report of the Constitutional Commission into a Review of The Bahamas Constitution

Ethical stem cell research and therapy “holds tremendous potential for The Bahamas”, says Free National Movement's deputy chairman - Dr. Duane Sands

Sands backs stem cell bill

Calls proposed law ‘progressive’

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

A day after Free National Movement (FNM) Leader Dr. Hubert Minnis blasted the government for “rushing” stem cell legislation through Parliament, his party’s deputy chairman Dr. Duane Sands said the proposed law is “progressive”.

Sands stressed that he was not trying to publically disagree with Minnis. He said Minnis had questioned whether the country could properly enforce laws governing stem cell research and therapy.

Sands added that ethical stem cell research and therapy “holds tremendous potential for The Bahamas”.

Sands was a member of a government-appointed task force that reviewed the stem cell issue and presented recommendations on how the procedures could be developed in the country. Those recommendations were instrumental in the drafting of the law.

“I think that what Dr. Minnis was suggesting was that he had no issues with stem cell work, but he wanted to express his concerns that the

enforcement of laws in the country be upgraded accordingly,” said Sands said when asked yesterday what he thought of Minnis’ opposition to the stem cell bill in the House of Assembly on Wednesday.

“I guess in his view, he thought this was equivalent to opening a Pandora’s box. As a member of the task force, I think that we sought to make recommendations to the government to minimize any potential exposure or risk to The Bahamas and the position of the task force was a very comprehensive, very considered position.”

On Wednesday, Minnis cautioned the government against “rushing” forward with the law.

“I ask the government, if they truly believe in this Bahamas, to not embark on this ill-advised adventure into stem cell research where we know we do not have the enforcement,” Minnis said.

He said the country could face being blacklisted or be targeted by unscrupulous scientists who would take advantage of The Bahamas’ lack of experience and inability to stringently enforce laws, even minor ones.

“I do not believe that we are yet in a position to adequately police this research and to ensure the maintenance of international standards,” Minnis said.

The argument drew criticism from several MPs from the government’s side, who berated Minnis for opposing the bill.

Minnis also suggested that the government was pushing the law to appease Canadian fashion mogul Peter Nygard, who he claimed is a financial backer for some members of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

Some government MPs also strongly denied these claims.

There have been some concerns expressed that stem cell research and therapy would be hijacked by mad scientists with unscrupulous motives and should not be allowed.

Sands downplayed that concern and said it should not deter the country from benefiting from medical tourism brought on by stem cell research and therapy.

“There will always be charlatans, snake oil salesmen trying to take advantage of anything,” Sands said.

“If there is somebody who is interested in cloning somebody, they are not going be stopped by legislation. There are laws against murder, there are laws against car theft, there are laws against incest. Legislation will not stop people from doing things.

“This legislation is intended to strengthen the controls in The Bahamas for this particular area of medicine.”

During debate on the bill on Wednesday, Minister of Health Dr. Perry Gomez said the bill would place strict limitations on the practice to prevent human reproduction.

July 05, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Bahamian History: The Bahamas / Bahamian Independence History

Sir Arthur Addresses Rotaract on Independence History


By Eric Rose
BIS 



NASSAU, The Bahamas – While giving a brief and personal account of Bahamian history, as it relates to Bahamian Independence, Governor-General Sir Arthur Foulkes said that there is “hardly a single event in our history that has had such a profound influence on the future of The Bahamas as the establishment of the House of Assembly ”.

“This institution and its eventual assimilation by Bahamians have contributed mightily to our history of political stability,” Sir Arthur said, while speaking at the Rotaract Club of East Nassau meeting on the topic “On Independence and the Way Forward”, on July 1, 2013, at the British Colonial Hilton.

”The House gave to the residents of these islands a measure of control over their affairs even though the imperial power, Great Britain, retained ultimate responsibility right up to the 10th of July 1973,” Sir Arthur added. “So the Bahamas had what was described as representative but not responsible government.”

Sir Arthur noted that, to be sure, the House, established in 1729, did not confer the status of a modern democracy on The Bahamas.

“That was a long way off;” he said; “but the population, including the black descendants of slaves, recognised the possibilities that this institution offered, and that is why it became, and remains, the ultimate objective of political activity.”

That is why, too, Sir Arthur continued, a racial minority with “varying degrees of support by the British” made access to it difficult for the majority.

“Prior to the 1962 elections when Bahamians for the first time enjoyed universal adult suffrage, voting rights were limited over the years by an array of what were termed qualifications but which were, in fact, obstacles,” Sir Arthur said.

"One had to be male to register to vote. One had to own or rent property of a certain value. One male could vote in every constituency in which he owned or rented property. There was open voting, and open buying of votes. A lawyer could cast a vote for each of the companies registered at his office.”

Elections, Sir Arthur pointed out, were held on different days to accommodate what Sir Etienne Dupuch called “an armada of vessels”: well provisioned with rum and flour, descending on one island after another.

“And, of course, there was gross inequality in the population of constituencies,” Sir Arthur said.

"Out of the white minority had evolved a classical oligarchy (a government by a few, usually privileged) that came to be known as the Bay Street Boys,” he added.

They were the ones, Sir Arthur said, who commanded the armadas of which Sir Etienne (Dupuch) complained, and they dominated Bahamian politics and commerce.

Sir Arthur said that there was, of course, throughout the years, agitation against racism, and for fair treatment of workers, for education and for reform of the political system to make the House of Assembly more representative of the people.

He said that in the 1920s and 1930s there was a group called the Ballot Party, which included a Barbadian tailor named R. M. Bailey and Bahamian politicians C. C. Sweeting and S. C. McPherson. In the 1940s there were others, including Dr. C. R. Walker, Bert Cambridge and Milo Butler.

"Then there was Etienne Dupuch who took over a struggling newspaper, The Nassau Daily Tribune, after World War I and became for many decades a towering figure in Bahamian journalism as well as a politician,” Sir Arthur said.

"Sir Etienne wielded a prolific and acerbic pen,” Sir Arthur stated. “He railed against racism and corruption, against the intransigence (inflexibility) of the oligarchy and the complacency of the British Government. One British newspaper branded him ‘Rebel in the Caribbean’.

“Sir Etienne and his newspaper did more than anybody else during those critical years to foster political consciousness among the Bahamian masses.”

Sir Arthur said that progress was slow; but there was some reform, including the introduction of the secret ballot for New Providence in 1939. One early notable achievement, he added, was the establishment of the Government High School in 1925. Labour unrest continued and exploded in the 1942 riot, Sir Arthur noted.

Sir Arthur said that a “most significant” change took place in the political arena in 1953, when a group of mostly “near-white” Bahamians founded what was to become the first national political party in the country, the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).

"It was the brainchild of William Cartwright but most of the hard work of organising the party throughout the islands was undertaken by its first Chairman Sir Henry Taylor,” Sir Arthur stated. “Both were members of the House of Assembly having been elected in 1949. Cyril Stevenson was Secretary General and also the flamboyant editor of ‘The Herald’.

"The Bay Street Boys responded by founding the United Bahamian Party (UBP), and the era of party politics came to The Bahamas. In 1956 the PLP gained a foothold in the House with the election of the Magnificent Six: Lynden Pindling, Randol Fawkes, Milo Butler, Cyril Stevenson, Clarence Bain and Sammy Isaacs.”

Almost immediately upon its formation, Sir Arthur said, a group of young black men saw the PLP as a vehicle for the achievement of a full progressive agenda for The Bahamas including the defeat of the UBP, an end to racism, economic and social justice and, ultimately, independence for the country.

They joined the PLP, formed themselves into the National Committee for Positive Action (NCPA) and supported the leadership of Sir Lynden Pindling, he added.

"For the first time since the Eleutheran Adventurers, there was serious talk of independence for these islands, but it had not yet become a popular idea,” Sir Arthur said. “When the NCPA held a debate on independence at St. Agnes Auditorium in 1959, they were publicly rebuked by the chairman of the party.”

Sir Arthur said that the general strike in 1958 galvanised the progressive movement in the Bahamas; but the unfair delimitation of constituencies remained and accounted for the PLP’s defeat in 1962, when that party got a majority of the votes cast but still lost the election.

"The UBP still refused to budge on this issue,” he stated. “The report of their Boundaries Commission in April 1965 was the catalyst for the Black Tuesday demonstration, when Sir Lynden threw the Speaker’s mace out of the window of the House of Assembly, and Sir Milo did likewise with the hour glasses the Speaker used to time his speeches.

"Finally, the PLP and Randol Fawkes, representing his Labour Party, succeeded in overthrowing the UBP in January 1967 when Sir Alvin Braynen threw in his lot with them.”

“I regard January 10^th 1967, as the most significant date in Bahamian history since Emancipation.”

Sir Arthur said he and Sir Cecil Wallace Whitfield raised the issue of independence on the floor of the House in 1967, after the nerve gas incident.

“The Americans had secured the agreement of the British Government to drop canisters of nerve gas in Bahamian waters despite our objections,” Sir Arthur said.

"The Americans had refused to talk directly to us; but Sir Cecil was included in a British delegation that talked with them in Washington,” Sir Arthur pointed out. “When the Americans assured the delegation that it was safe to drop the nerve gas canisters in Bahamian waters, Sir Cecil responded: ‘If it’s so safe, why don’t you drop them in the Hudson River?’”

"Sir Cecil was so infuriated that he suggested in the House of Assembly that we should consider making a unilateral declaration of independence, so we could have immediate control of our own affairs and our territorial waters,” Sir Arthur said.

Sir Arthur noted that just weeks before the Government announced in 1972 that it would proceed to independence after the upcoming election, Sir Lynden was in London and told a British newspaper that his government was not thinking about independence at that time.

“I suspect the about-face was due to pressure from the Hon. A. D. Hanna who had been a consistent advocate of independence,” Sir Arthur said. “It is one of the ironies of history and politics that some of those who were the most ardent advocates of independence found themselves in opposition in 1972 and opposing independence under the leadership of Sir Lynden.”

"A veritable flood of water – and a little blood -- had gone under the political bridge between 1967 and 1972,” he said.

There was a split in the progressive movement, the formation of a new opposition – the Free National Movement – and some “very tense moments including physical attacks on Sir Cecil and others”, Sir Arthur said.

“But that is history for another day,” he added.

The PLP won the 1972 election and, in December of that year, a Bahamian delegation of Government and Opposition met with representatives of the British Government at Marlborough House in London to agree an independence constitution for The Bahamas, Sir Arthur said.

"There were divisions between the Bahamas Government and Opposition on several issues including rustication, the right to leave one’s country, and equality for women,” Sir Arthur said. “On the latter, the British sided with the Government and the issue of equality for women was lost. That, in my view, remains a flaw in our Constitution 40 years later.”

However, he noted that a “shining moment” was when the Bahamian delegation – Government and Opposition – opposed a British Government proposal to give Bahamian citizenship to a category of persons registered in The Bahamas as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

“It is worth noting that the dismantling of the old colonial system of government started in 1964, when the Bahamas got its first codified Constitution with ministerial government under the UBP,” Sir Arthur said. “Our second Constitution was in 1969, when further responsibilities were granted to the Bahamas Government under the PLP.”

Sir Arthur said that, of those Bahamians who participated in that historic meeting, the following are still alive: A. D. Hanna, George Smith, Loftus Roker, Philip Bethel, Sir Orville Turnquest and himself.

"The Bahamas has the Constitution of a modern parliamentary democracy, which has served us well for 40 years and will, I believe, serve us well for the next 40 and beyond,” Sir Arthur said.

"Our history and our culture contains positive as well as negative influences and characteristics and today we are facing some severe challenges as a result of our own mistakes and the impact of negative influences from outside.”

"The Constitution provides us rights as citizens, and with the framework and rules for the conduct of our affairs,” he added. “The challenges we face can be successfully met with the sustained involvement of all of us as patriotic contributing citizens.”

July 03, 2013

Bahamas.gov.bs

Caribbean Blog International

Black Bahamians, cultural stupidity, and 40 years of political independence and beyond

By Dennis Dames

I have had an awkward experience on a bus stop recently.  I met a black American couple who was visiting all the way from Seattle; the husband related to me their experience in a hotel restaurant.  He told me that the servers must have taken them for natives, because they were seated for a long while before they were approach for service.  They saw the waiter or waitress passing them often, serving the lighter colored guests and other people of whom they apparently perceived as tourists - at other tables. 

The man asked me: if I have ever had such an experience?  My answer was yes, and I added that this is a common practice in The Bahamas where black Bahamian waiters, waitresses, and others, prefer to serve white customers and other assumed visitors over black Bahamians; even if the black Bahamians were seated first.

I told him further, that I do not put up with it anymore; I simply walk out and go where I am more appreciated.  This is indeed sad for a so called black nation.  I have stated before, that we black Bahamians have a really serious problem with black Bahamians.

We really need to do some serious reflections as a people moving beyond 40 years of political independence and cultural stupidity.  We need to do better.


Caribbean Blog International

More details on the legislation and regulations to support the government's proposed value added tax (VAT) system is forthcoming

Govt to reveal more on VAT

By Taneka Thompson
Guardian Senior Reporter
taneka@nasguard.com

Minister of State for Finance Michael Halkitis said the government intends to reveal more details on the legislation and regulations to support its proposed value added tax (VAT) system as early as the next three to four weeks.

The system is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2014.

Halkitis told The Nassau Guardian that the government wants to be able to provide members of the public with the proposed legislation as well as the relevant regulations on the new tax system so they can be discussed at the same time, well in advance of the enforcement date.

“We will give the public a good idea of the items that will be exempt and the registration threshold so the public can have a better understanding of its potential impact on them,” Halkitis said.

“When we present the actual legislation for public discussion then we will accelerate our public education, which involves moving throughout the country and informing the people of its potential impact on them, etc.

“You can expect to see towards the end of the summer and into the fall an intensive public education program because we realize that is very important.”

While there have been some fears that VAT may add to the financial burden of the lower class, Halkitis said he expects the new system to bring in more money from wealthier individuals.

“Right now we virtually do not tax the services portion of our economy and we know that individuals with higher incomes spend a greater portion of their income on services,” he said.

“We are fully aware that particularly those at the bottom end of the economic bracket can ill afford any increase in the cost of living and we’ll do all we can to mitigate against that.

“We are also aware that nobody likes to pay taxes and we can’t afford to overtax the economy and drive us back into a recession, so we are trying to balance the need for revenue against making sure we don’t overtax the economy, and of course we have to look at the hole in the budget that we have to fill so we get lower deficits, lower amounts to alter the public debt.”

Halkitis said the VAT system will have built-in protections to offset overtaxing.

He said basic food items, medicine, education, health care and financial services are categories that will likely be exempt from the tax.

He also said that once VAT is implemented the government will reduce certain customs duty rates.

“So we will take all measures to ensure that it does not fall disproportionately on those who can least afford it,” Halkitis said.

The government intends to impose a 15 percent VAT on most goods and services, except for those that fall under the exempt category.

July 01, 2013

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International