Democracy and the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) in The Bahamas

The Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA) operates as a private regulatory and administrative corporation under a specialized statutory treaty (the HCA) - the Hawksbill Creek Agreement

POLICY ADVICE NOTE: 307-2026: THE SUBTLE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HAWKSBILL CREEK AGREEMENT - Part 2

By Professor Gilbert Morris

PART II: 

That said…let’s consider the Royal Commission report which was precursor to the 1973 Constitution:

The Royal Commission was appointed on the recommendation of The Bahamas Government to review the Hawksbill Creek Agreement, chaired by Sir Hugh Wooding.  Its report is cited as Royal Commission on the Hawksbill Creek Agreement (1971).

(It should be kept apart from the 1967 Commission of Inquiry into casino operations in Freeport and Nassau, which sat from 13 March 1967 and reported that November and is confused often as the same thing).  The Wooding Commission began work on 19 September 1970 and reported in 1971.  It treated the Agreement as a binding obligation which the Government had breached, and it found the Agreement still in force through three constitutional iterations.

Proof.

* Dates and mandate.  Its terms asked it to weigh Freeport's arrangements against prevailing social and economic conditions, with particular reference to Government and Port Authority correspondence of August and September 1968.  That correspondence concerned the Benguet transaction.

* Members.  Wooding had been Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago and was a member of the Privy Council.  The reprint credits Sir Fred Phillips, R. McAllister Lloyd and Malcolm Francis Lindsay alongside him.

* Characterisation.  In paragraphs 174 to 176 (page 59), the Commission described the immigration dispute as a case in which a Government was alleged to have broken an a foundational obligation it had no power to vary in its own.  It noted the gravity of that charge against a party that had just won the struggle for democracy.  It also recorded that the Government first used executive power to direct the alleged breach, then legislative power to abrogate the Agreement's provisions and it resolved that the legislative power was void and of no effect where it failed the procedure of the Agreement itself.  It was a usurpation!

* Final assessment of validity.  On page 75 the Commission concluded that the Agreement subsists and continues to bind the Government, the Port Authority and the licensees, each entitled to expect the others to honour its terms…as set out in the Agreement.

The legislative step the Commission had in view is documented.  The Immigration Act 1967, section 2(7)(a), originally saved special immigration provisions in agreements made under any Act, and section 3 of the Immigration Act 1970 repealed that saving.  The Commission therefore saw an abrogation by statute while still holding the Agreement itself alive.

Its remedies followed from that view:

* No further attempts at amendment of the Agreement, given the difficulty of securing four-fifths of the licensees (page 74);

* Freeport integrated into the national community (page 74);

* No unilateral legislative solutions can gain validity (page 75), as Parliament is not sovereign…The Bahamas Constitution is sovereign and the Agreement is woven through it.

The verifiable characterisation is that of a Sovereign Trust, because of its grant of municipal powers and its binding.  The verdict on validity is that the Agreement survived the Government's 1970 legislation as a subsisting obligation, though its immigration clauses had been statutorily overridden.

The Commission's phrasing makes the Agreement a triangular subjunctive obligation among Government, Port Authority and licensees.  That three-party structure explains why it counselled against amendment: any revision required the consent of the licensees.

There is a deeper insight:

1.  One reason that the Agreement cannot be altered at will, is because the Grand Bahama Port Authority DOES NOT BELONG to the principals of the Port.  That is why the sale of the assets of the GBPA is open to question.

2.  The Assets are part of a Sovereign Trust and under Trust law, the Trustees cannot be direct beneficiaries from trust assets, unless as provided by the Trust instrument; in this Case, the Hawksbill Creek Agreement…which does not provide for any dissipation or alienation of assets.

3. Those assets are to be returned to a municipality or a mayoralty of Freeport in 2054.  That means the people of The Bahamas through a government entity - the municipality - ALREADY OWN the assets of the GBPA…and the Hawksbill Creek Agreements sovereign trust is a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) mechanism aimed at generating value from 1955 to 2054 for the sake and benefit of the Licensees.

This is a critical point to grasp because it creates and entitlement in property at 2054, and it’s why it can’t be disturbed arbitrarily…therefore it’s more profound that than the issues that caused a Royal Commission.

4.  That means - and again this is not explicit or literal, it must be drawn from the proper reading: the Licensees constitute a "Parliament of Licensees" following the textual anchor here, on page 74.

5. This means the only valid pathway for the initiative announced by government - as brother Harold Williams shows - is the Licensee Association must be established officially as it should have been since 1955.  And the four-fifths threshold also bears directly on the review the present government has announced.

The test of these propositions came in St George et al v Hayward et al (Common Law and Equity Division, FP 223A and 223B of 2006) found that the GBPA could not be wound up as an ordinary company.  In Shangrila (1982) Ltd v Grand Bahama Port Authority Ltd, BS 1984 SC 23 (Adams J).  The court called the Port Authority the sole licensing body for businesses under clause 2(23)(a).  It also held that the 1968 Government and Port Authority correspondence never became a formal agreement, BECAUSE the 4/5ths licensee consent was never obtained.

Therefore - consistent with the constitutional jurisprudence of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement and the Privy Council Cases together with the Royal Commission Report: There can be No Sovereign Dissolution via Private Courts…which is to say, legally, the GBPA operates as a private regulatory and administrative corporation under a specialized statutory treaty (the HCA).  The tribunals and concurrent court determinations have continuously upheld that the administrative status quo in Freeport remains intact and the entity itself cannot be arbitrarily liquidated or legislated out of existence.

Altogether, everything being done today and every company and institution established must be for the benefit of the licensees and both the GBPA and the Government must convince 4/5ths of the Licensees of their plans and they must accede and assent.

You know what other word describes this that does not appear in the Agreement or the Royal Commission report: DEMOCRACY!  That’s what this is: it’s the highest form of democracy read from the Agreement in process.

It is not a stop sign.

Source / Comment

- POLICY ADVICE NOTE: 307-2026: THE SUBTLE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HAWKSBILL CREEK AGREEMENT - Part 1

The Hawksbill Creek Agreement (HCA) is the most advanced, subtle expression of jurisprudence in the history of the Americas and in The Bahamas

About The Hawkesbill Creek Agreement (HCA) - 04th August, 1955 - The Bahamas

POLICY ADVICE NOTE: 307-2026: THE SUBTLE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HAWKSBILL CREEK AGREEMENT

By Professor Gilbert Morris

PART I:

A constitution cannot be read like a stop sign.  The Hawksbill Creek Agreement is the most advanced, subtle expression of jurisprudence in the history of the Americas and in The Bahamas; and requires a curious intellectual that does not mistake the obvious for the most real.

It has explicit and implied nuances and trace elements that must be read from different sections as substrate logic.  "Grandfathered" is one of these substrate markers and here it means “continued in force”, as existing law, across a change or changes to constitutions.  This is basic.

Therefore, record needn’t be explicit as literalists expect.  They must learn to read organically.  The record shows the Agreement surviving 1964, 1969 and 1973 through general continuity provisions.  The case law substantiates this: therefore we know the Agreement survives because of the case law…so that if we don’t see it, it is we who are blind.  That is what precedent does in the interpretative process in Jurispudence.

Here are the signposts:

* 1955 origin.  The 1960 amending Act describes itself as supplemental to a Principal Agreement dated 4 August 1955, made by the Acting Governor, Gardner-Brown.  The Statute Law lists the Agreement and its amendments as Chapters 261 through 265.

* 1963. The Bahama Islands (Constitution) Act 1963 is the parent statute: the 1969 Order was made under its section 1, and so was the 1973 Independence Order.

* Adaptation to ministerial government. Clause 14 of the 1966 amending agreement required that "Order in Council" and "Colonial Secretary" be read as "Order by the Governor" and "Secretary to the Cabinet".  The Agreement thus adjusted itself to the 1964 constitution by contract.

* 1969."  Hawksbill Creek" appears in constituency descriptions originally made under the 1969 Constitution, which is only a geographic boundary.

* 1973.  Revoking the prior Order does not affect laws continued under it.  Existing laws are construed with whatever modifications bring them into conformity with independence.  Article 30 provides that written laws enacted before 10 July 1973 cannot be held inconsistent with Articles 16 to 27, the property protection of Article 27 included.

Because the Agreement is scheduled to statutes, it qualifies as "written law."  Things an obvious reference which most people miss as they don’t know how to read constitutions.  Article 30 treats any instrument having the force of law as written law, so the 1955 grant and its pre-independence amendments sit inside that shield.  This is also constitutive.

Article 30 also excludes regulations or executive acts made after 9 July 1973 under such laws.  Later instruments therefore stand outside the shield.

The preservation of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement in the law of the Bahamas is real…and taken in its generality.  The Agreement is an existing law under Independence Order section 4 and Article 30, protected by Article 27 and amendable by rules within the agreement itself.  This is confirmed by Privy Council cases and a 1973 Royal Commission.

Source / Comment

- POLICY ADVICE NOTE: 307-2026: THE SUBTLE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE HAWKSBILL CREEK AGREEMENT - Part 2

The Cost of Living in The Bahamas

The Impact of the Cost of Living on Businesses and Households in The Bahamas

Reduce Value Added Tax (VAT) on Fuel to Provide Financial Relief to Businesses and Households in The Bahamas

By The Hon. Dr. Hubert A. Minnis

The Government speaks about the surplus, strong tourism numbers and a growing economy.  But the question is: are Bahamian families feeling it?

The cost of living continues to put pressure on households.  Families are dealing with higher electricity and fuel costs, living paycheck to paycheck, and power outages that can mean spoiled food and damaged appliances.

Government must show compassion and provide meaningful relief.

I am proposing:

• Remove VAT from diesel to provide relief to our fishing, construction and manufacturing industries.

• Reduce VAT on fuel to 5%.

• Reduce VAT on electricity to 5% for businesses and 0% for residential customers.

• Encourage employees who can work from home to do so one or two days per week, helping families reduce transportation and fuel costs.

These are practical measures that can help soften the impact of high fuel and electricity costs.

A strong economy must ultimately translate into relief for the Bahamian people.

Source / Comment

The Bahamas: What happened to the National Investment Fund (NIF) Money

Bahamian Politics - The Bahamas: $1,000,000,000.00 - One Billion Dollars demand a full audit

No full accounting and accountability of $1,000,000,000.00 - One Billion Dollars of the National Investment Fund (NIF) of The Bahamas

By Lynden Nairn

Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas

Sadly, the Bahamian people are being forced to dig for answers to basic questions about their own money.  Little has been provided.  But this is what we know:

1.  In 2025, Parliament authorized the Government to borrow up to $300 million and deposit the proceeds into the National Investment Fund (NIF).

2.  In 2026, the Government told the Bahamian people that a further $700 million in excess borrowing proceeds had been transferred to the NIF.

That puts $1 BILLION (not just $700 million) at the centre of the NIF discussion.

3.  When finally pressed to explain what happened to NIF money, the Government said that $310.9 million had been spent to date.

So what does that mean?

First: The Government has still not provided a clear reconciliation explaining what happened to the remaining $689.1 million of the $1 billion it said was destined for or transferred to the NIF.

Second: Even for the $310.9 million it says was spent, the Government has not provided the Bahamian people with a full, transaction-by-transaction accounting showing precisely where the money went, when it was spent, who received it, who authorized it, and under what authority each expenditure was made.

The Bahamian people must NOT accept a two-sentence description of the expenditure of $310.9 million as a sufficient accounting.

This is public money.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, the Government of The Bahamas has a very simple obligation:

FULLY RECONCILE THE $1 BILLION.

Tell the Bahamian people:

- Where did the money go?

- Who received it?

- When was it spent or transferred?

- Who authorized it?

- And under what legal and parliamentary authority was it done?

Those are not complicated questions.

$1 BILLION demands a full accounting.

Source / Comment

The National Investment Fund (NIF) and Young Bahamians Lack of Trust in The Bahamas Political System and Bahamian Politics

The National Investment Fund (NIF) and Recklessly Careless Politicans in The Bahamas

By Tevin R. Bannister

This National Investment Fund issue clearly demonstrates why so many young Bahamians have no more faith in our political system nor its leaders.

Halkitis, in his budget communication in May 2026 said that the government borrowed $2.5 billion and said they used $1.8 billion on debt repayment, and the balance ($700 million) sent to the National Investment Fund (NIF).

OPM Comms Director, Latrae Rahming comes on National television and tells the Bahamian public that the $700 million figure "conflates" the issue and "muddys" the water. But this is the EXACT figure that the Minister of Finance stood up in parliament and told the public.

Even more insulting is the fact that Halkitis said that the government acted on the advice of the Attorney General and they acted on the basis of another piece of legislation, when the National Investment Fund is governed by its OWN legislation (National Investment Funds Act 2022) so why have legislation/regulations and dont use them??

International financial agencies have already said its "mind boggling" the way we manage our finances in The Bahamas. Putting politics aside, we must be very careful to safeguard our International financial reputation.

The minister and the comms director are clearly out of step on this issue, and it raises the question, did the Minister lie to Parliament (the people) ?

Source / Comment

What is Best for The Bahamas?

Focus Bahamians - Focus Bahamas!

Attention Bahamians - Attention Bahamas!

WE ARE EASILY DISTRACTED LIKE INSIPID CHILDREN!

By Professor Gilbert Morris

Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas  

I’m a part of 11 chat groups in about 10 countries worldwide.  But we seem the worst amongst them in our wasteful shrill partisan vapidity…never seeming able to focus on what’s serious, credible or real.

We seem a people easily distracted into insipidity.  With all this country faces we seem enchanted by the same nebula, repeated every three months in the same subject cycle… and yet never do we seem concerned to address issues systematically that would rescue and reform the country we claim to Love.

There is an engineer in a Bahamas chat who has a solution which I have read for our energy crisis, but if he were to post it, I doubt it would get 10% of the responses of a posting that asks was Cecil Wallace Whitfield taller than Pindling.  That distraction would be followed with people posting photographs and talking about how you measure distinctions in height by using photographs then running off on a tangent talking about Napoleonic complexes: how height determines leadership and other forms of absolutely feckless drivel by which our mental spaces seem to be entertained endlessly.

Then others chime in saying “oh I was there with Pindling or Cecil Wallace Whitfield when he did a thing”.  But they never ask themselves, who was there with you when you did a thing?

It is a form of necrophiliactic dementia how we lurch to dragging up the first majority rule generation…because we’ve done nothing comparable to them…and merely use them constantly to draw relevance from proximity.

Then there are all the constant aggrandising celebratory hosanna’s for absolutely nothing that moves this country towards its potential.

In the film, “No Country for Old Men”, the psychopath asks Woody Harrelson‘s character the most important question in self assessment:

If the rules that you followed brought you to this position, of what use was the rule?

If all that we’ve done for 53 years, brought us to this condition - poor eduction performance, energy crisis, filth on our streets, amongst the murder capitols of the world, slow, inefficient confusing government services, debt and incoming climate crisis - of what use is claiming it as a triumph when others starting later than us with fewer resources surpassed us by others of magnitude?

Some think stupidly and childishly when one speaks in this manner all they hear is we aren’t smart or we are useless.  But when a team plays it heart out and loses year after year…the changes that are imposed are not a statement that the players are useless: they played in a system that couldn’t win!

We’ve played in a system that can’t win…because here we are!

When one refers to other states that have done well…we never seem to see it as instructive for us.  Some people immediate responses show they don’t understand the logic of comparison.  They retort without forethought, saying things like “every country is different”…as if that’s as obvious as a white elephant doing the bachata in a tea cup!

We drag up every mind maiming excuse: they are Asian, they are a dictatorship, they eat velvety bananas, anything to avoid assessing ourself as the country collapses around our feet.  But that psychosis is aimed at defending the rules, practises and policies which got us to where we are now…defended psychotically by those who benefited disproportionately…without a reflective or corrective sense.

Every three to four months, as the subject cycle goes around again… someone may post that Singapore’s governing troika is:

Efficiency

Merit

Transparency

The very way in which it’s expressed shows a gargantuan error in conceptualisation.  One must always ask what values are operating behind the mantra?  When Malaysia broke the Singapore-Malaysia Federation it was because Lee Kuan Yew demanded:

1. No ethnic parties

2. All citizens must share in prosperity

3. The only way to ensure these two is anti-corruption and transparency

These are the values behind the mantra.  Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Goh Keng Swee taught another principle that came before the mantra: “uncertainty”.  A scale always has a value you can’t see, a watch is always off time to a degree that you can’t see…what does this mean for political values?

You are never efficient, you’re always becoming efficient; you’re never a meritocracy, you’re always becoming a meritocracy; you’re never transparent, you’re always becoming transparent.  Think about what that means…unlike us constantly celebrating pulling wings off roaches…Singapore would launch a programme that dominates the world and their response is…it’s becoming better…but there’s lots of work to do.

Lee Kuan Yew and Dr. Goh used kindergarten and the military service to drill this value into every Singaporean.

That population was not docile…there were riots, strikes, ethnic unrest.  It took 10 years to convince Singaporeans to make English the official language.  It to 15 years to teach them how to live in social housing.  But the educational and military systems did their jobs.  So by the time one gets to governance on efficiency, merit and transparency…these are not just terms.  They have a deep cultural value proposition that drives them.

Efficiency is systems, methods, rules enforcement; merit is more important than family or political cronies, transparency means exposing even friends…and it means enforcement: behind each of these are governance systems tied to values.  Therefore merely listing them does not get at the root of how they are established and function in Singapore.  The same is true for Japan, Iceland, Norway and New Zealand.

Singapore’s ranking in the world does not reveal its profound inner workings:

1. 25% of what the citizen pays in taxes is not a tax at all, but an investment for which the citizens receives dividends

2. Singapore airlines is best in the world

3. Singapore’s financial services is based on $100 trillion in FOREX trading that make it one of four money centres in the world

4. People leave UAE have decamped to Singapore: using a similar plan to that which one proposed during COVID’s height, Singapore has created a gold plated retirement programme, yet there isn’t one inch of Singapore that is as naturally beautiful as the worst beach in The Bahamas

5. Singapore’s education is the best in the world, yet they don’t try to fix weakness…they build on strengths

6. Every Singapore child gets $70,000 dollars between birth and 18 toward its growth and development, eliminating the cost to parents for raising children.

Of all the Singapore initiatives that shows its application of “uncertainty”, and the notion of always “becoming better”, nothing compares to its water issues.

One of the reasons the break in the Singapore Malaysian Federation was so devastating was Singapore had no water.  In 1960 they launched a plan that would take 90 years to 2050.  It generated education and engineering around its problems…is mapped out a strategy and executed: Singapore cleaned up its rivers or natural water bodies, it built the most advanced reverse osmosis, it launched technologies to draw water from humidity and now with 24 years to go, it’s achieved 89% water independence from Malaysia.

As a nation it knows how to get things done.  What is more, its citizens believe its government knows how to get things done.  It is a country, where problems never get politicised…they get solutions because Singapore is driven by the idea that every Singaporean must be protected from depravation; a principle in the Preamble of our constitution, which no sane person can say we’ve executed.

Our constant frivolity suggests that we lack the cogency required to do hard things…to break out of our partisan mold and to execute on that which is best for the country.  Unlike Singapore - and this is critical for comparative logic - we have no guiding ethic or principles and no forum where it could be taught…we chose not to cultivate it and we chose to live to the point that our country stands where it does!

Source / Comment

Hello Mr. Michael Halkitis: What's The Bahamas Government One Tax Bahamas Initiative?

Paging Michael Halkitis, The Bahamas Minister of Finance: Give Us The Full Story On ‘One Tax!’

By Michael C. Pintard
FNM Leader

The Government’s One Tax Bahamas initiative is being presented as a routine modernization exercise.  It is nothing of the sort.

This is a sweeping and unprecedented expansion of the Government’s tax administration apparatus that will ultimately require every Bahamian taxpayer to obtain a unique government-issued tax identification number as a condition of accessing tax services.  That is a major public policy change, not an administrative update.

The first question is simple: Where is the Minister of Finance?

When a government fundamentally changes how citizens are identified and tracked in the tax system, the elected Minister responsible should announce and defend the change.  Instead, Bahamians are being asked to accept a transformative policy with virtually no explanation from the Government’s political leadership.  Public servants should not be left to answer questions that only ministers can answer.

The second concern is the reckless implementation timetable.  Bahamians are being told that this system will be introduced with barely enough time for citizens and businesses to understand its implications, test its functionality, train their staff, and adapt their operations.  A project of this magnitude should be preceded by extensive consultation, public education, pilot testing, and parliamentary scrutiny.  Instead, the Government appears determined to force it through at breakneck speed.

Third, the Government is demanding trust without providing transparency.

This new system will centralize sensitive personal and business information, yet there has been no satisfactory explanation of who will have access to that information, what agencies will be able to share it, what safeguards exist to prevent abuse, what cybersecurity protections are in place, or what remedies citizens will have if their information is compromised.  In an era of growing data breaches and cybercrime, that silence is unacceptable.

Fourth, where was the consultation?

Who tested this system?

Which business groups were consulted?

Which taxpayers reviewed the registration process?

Which privacy experts assessed the risks?

Which small businesses were asked whether the platform is practical and user-friendly?

Government should be designing systems with the public, not imposing systems on the public.

Most troubling of all is the mindset behind this initiative.  The Government appears to believe that digitization automatically equals progress.  It does not.  A centralized database, a new identification number, and a slick website are not substitutes for accountability, consultation, privacy protections, or public trust.

The Opposition rejects the Government’s approach entirely.

The rollout should be paused.  The Minister of Finance should come before the Bahamian people and explain why this universal tax identification system is necessary, what laws govern its use, how privacy will be protected, who will have access to taxpayer information, what consultations were undertaken, and why such a profound change is being rushed forward with so little notice.

The burden is on the Government to justify this initiative.  So far, it has failed to do so.

Source / Comment