...exactly why was Ken Russell fired from Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham's Cabinet?

Cabinet rules that led to firing

By LARRY SMITH



WELL, this is all very confusing, isn’t it?

Just before an election the leader of the FNM gets into a nomination spat with a three-time successful candidate in one of the party’s Grand Bahama strongholds.

The 58-year-old candidate is a Cabinet minister, who has complained publicly about changes to the boundaries of his High Rock constituency, recently redrawn as East Grand Bahama. And in quick time, he is sacked from the Cabinet and starts behaving like Tennyson Wells – right before the election.

So what is this all about? Where does party business end and government business begin in this political squabble? And exactly why was Ken Russell fired?

Social media websites were deluged over the weekend with questions and opinions on these unusual developments. Most of those comments, and much newspaper coverage as well, focused on the nomination issue, and the supposed rift between “original” FNMs and so-called “Ingrahamites”, who joined the party after 1990.

For example, Ivan Johnson in The Punch said the controversy revolved around Russell’s “gross disrespect” of Ingraham over the nomination issue. And tensions were so high at a meeting in Grand Bahama on Sunday, The Punch said, that a special security detail had to accompany the prime minister.

This was denied to me by individuals who attended the packed meeting in Freeport, and an online video of Ingraham’s remarks showed no evidence of dissent or hostility amongst the exuberant crowd of FNM supporters, despite Ken Russell’s obvious presence in the audience.

“The PM has enraged the Cecilite FNMs with his cold and harsh treatment” of Ken Russell, Kendal Wright and Verna Grant, The Punch wrote on Monday. Meanwhile, Russell had earlier told the Freeport News he did not know why he was fired. Branding Ingraham a “tyrant”, he said he would seek to run in the next election anyway.

However, insiders say the sacking had little to do with Russell’s attempt to hold onto the FNM nomination, or to any disagreement over the redrawing of constituency boundaries. He was fired because he publicly opposed a Cabinet decision.

Under our system of government, ministers must support in public the collective judgment of the government and their Cabinet colleagues. A minister who cannot support a major government policy is expected to resign. Or face dismissal by the prime minister.

This is clearly spelled out in The Manual on Cabinet Procedure: “A fundamental principle of Cabinet government is unity. It is important to present a united front to the public. If any minister feels conscientiously unable to support a decision taken by Cabinet, he has one course open to him and that is to resign his office.”

And in a telling comment to The Tribune by Maurice Moore – one of the original so-called “Cecilites” and the former parliamentary representative for High Rock – “Russell didn’t handle the matter correctly.”

In fact, the reason for Ken Russell’s firing goes back to the waning months of the Christie administration, when the government received a proposal from an American company known as Beka Development. Beka reportedly wanted to acquire 64,000 acres in east Grand Bahama at a concessionary price of $2,800 per acre.

According to Sir Arthur Foulkes, writing in The Tribune in March 2007, “Mr Christie and his colleagues in the PLP government must have taken leave of their senses even to entertain such a proposal. But it is obvious that preliminary talks have taken place and that Beka has been encouraged to proceed.”

Since then, Beka has turned its attentions to the island of Eleuthera, where it is supposedly pursuing a multi-million-dollar project on privately owned pristine coastline at South Point. This project is opposed by environmentalists, and last summer Beka said its failure to advance the Grand Bahama project was also due to environmental issues, “and the fact that 80 per cent of the required land was government-owned”.

Meanwhile, the original east Grand Bahama project seems to have morphed into something else. Last year, The Tribune reported that a mysterious company called “the Cylin Group, whose principals include the daughter of the Chinese defence minister, was looking at a major tourism development on 2,000 acres of land in the Sharp Rock area”.

This project was said to include hotels, a casino, a cruiseship terminal and a marina to be built by Chinese companies. Most of the land was said to be owned by the Grand Bahama Development Corp (Devco) and the Port Group. Devco is half owned by the Port Group and half by Hutchinson Whampoa, a Chinese company.

Insiders say that after the FNM took office in May 2007 the Grand Bahama Port Authority told government it had not agreed to transfer any land to Cylin, and subsequent inquiries as to where the money for the project was coming from were not favourable. “Nevertheless, the government gave the project the benefit of the doubt and allowed it to come before Cabinet, where it was voted down on four separate occasions.”

In Ingraham’s own words, “we would like to have any kind of project in Grand Bahama, but we also want to do things that we think make sense and not everybody who comes along and says we’ve got something is somebody who we could trust”. He added that Russell promoted the project in public even though it had been rejected by the government four times.

On Monday, Russell admitted as much to The Freeport News. He said he was working with investors seeking to do a $1.5 billion development on Grand Bahama. He acknowledged that the investors had applied to the Port Authority for land but their request had been turned down. Very little is known about this proposed project or the developers themselves.

The nomination issue is a separate matter, insiders say. This is apparently a case of the FNM leadership trying to recruit fresh talent to revitalise the party ahead of an election. However, there are those who argue that the Cabinet rules issue was a pretext to get rid of Russell, an ineffective minister who was obstinately refusing to step down as a candidate despite an earlier undertaking to do so.

In this context, there is no doubt that the FNM leadership has the biggest say in deciding the slate of election candidates. According to the party’s constitution, candidates are recommended by the executive committee (chaired by the party leader), after consultation with constituency associations. The recommendations are then ratified by the FNM council, which is also chaired by the party leader.

“I met with the High Rock, now East Grand Bahama, Constituency Association earlier this afternoon,” Ingraham told the crowd in Freeport on Sunday, “and invited them to put forward the names of at least two candidates that you could consider to carry your party’s flag for East Grand Bahama in the next election, and I expect to hear from them in short order.”

He added that some sitting FNM members of parliament will resign of their own volition and others will be asked to make way for new candidates.

The subtext to all this is the future of the Grand Bahama Port Authority itself – a private franchise with enormous value for the country as a whole. Insiders say that the island’s economic woes combined with the Port Authority’s lack of direction creates a huge dilemma for the government, which does not want to be seen as intervening heavy-handedly in private enterprise, abrogating the Hawksbill Creek Agreement or pre-empting the courts.

But at the meeting on Sunday Ingraham put the GBPA on notice. “After the next election we will say to the Port Authority, this or that. And so it will be very much a question of Grand Bahama’s future in the next general election, which will take place not long from now.” It is not clear what he meant, and Ingraham declined to elaborate for me.

Meanwhile, the opposition PLP is said to be working assiduously behind the scenes to get disgruntled FNM’s to run for the PLP or cross the floor and support a vote of no confidence in the government. This would presumably force the prime minister to dissolve parliament, after which a general election must be held within 90 days.

If this does not happen the government can constitutionally continue in office until May 2 (the date of the 2007 election), when parliament must be dissolved and an election held within 90 days. So theoretically, the prime minister has until the end of July to hold elections, although most observers believe a February poll is more likely.

Of course, most observers believed a November election was in the cards too.


• What do you think? Send comments to larry@tribunemedia.net, or visit bahamapundit.

December 15, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Kenneth Russell: Minister of Housing and Member of Parliament for High Rock was fired from Hubert Ingraham's Cabinet

KENNETH RUSSELL FIRED FROM CABINET

By PAUL G TURNQUEST

Tribune242 Chief Reporter

pturnquest@tribunemedia.net

MINISTER of Housing and Member of Parliament for High Rock Kenneth Russell was fired from the Cabinet of the Bahamas at 9.30am today, The Tribune can report.

According to party insiders, Mr Russell’s termination came as a result of him “breaking Cabinet protocol” and allegedly discussing Cabinet decisions in the media. Reportedly Mr Russell’s challenge to his party leader, Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, that he would be running in High Rock despite his party’s wishes was the “final straw”.

The Minister of Works and Transport, Neko Grant, will now take over responsibility of the Ministry of Housing.

FNM Chairman Carl Bethel told The Tribune yesterday that he could not comment on Mr Russell’s termination as it was a Cabinet decision and “not a party matter”.

However, PLP MP for Fox Hill  Fred Mitchell said that there is no question that the FNM Cabinet has “collapsed”.

Claiming that there is a tremendous amount of resentment in the FNM, Mr Mitchell called on Mr Russell, Clifton MP Kendal Wright and Eight Mile Rock MP Verna Grant to join with the PLP and vote Mr Ingraham out of office. 

“The handwriting has been on the wall for days, the collapse of the FNM Cabinet as we knew it. Constitutionally, the position has now been regularised with the dismissal of Kenneth Russell from the Cabinet,” Mr Mitchell said.

Recalling his earlier statements published in The Tribune, Mr Mitchell said that he questioned how Mr Russell could remain in the Cabinet given the fact that he publicly dissented from a decision of the Cabinet and was chastised by the Prime Minister for doing so in the House of Assembly.

“I understand that the situation became more untenable for the former Minister when he made his position pellucidly clear about opposing the will of the Prime Minister at the meeting of the party held last evening in Freeport,” Mr Mitchell added.

“The Prime Minister acted this morning to dismiss him once he heard the content of his comments. Mr Ingraham had to act to help to frighten the other troops and keep them in line. My concern is for the stability of the government and ultimately the country. What we see happening is only the tip of the iceberg, a desperate attempt by the Prime Minister to save himself.

“This is 2002 revisited. Firing ministers, attacking his own people. Mr Russell, Kendal Wright and Verna Grant should join us in the PLP and vote Mr Ingraham out. The government is operating on a knife’s edge. It is time for the Prime Minister to go to the people and put himself out his misery and allow the PLP the opportunity to govern. I remind the Prime Minister that in the circumstances when the new Parliament meets, the maxim will be: the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” Mr Mitchell said.

 December 09, 2011

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Branville McCartney’s decision to leave Prime Minister Ingraham’s cabinet is still unfathomable to many Bahamians

Branville McCartney’s Folly


by Simon


Former junior minister Branville McCartney’s decision to leave Prime Minister Ingraham’s cabinet under three years is still unfathomable to many Bahamians. Just as his statements since his return to the backbench have proven baffling and contradictory, his stated reasons for leaving remain inexplicable. He claims not to have left over a matter of policy.

In parliamentary systems such as ours, cabinet experience is not a prerequisite for serving as prime minister. Still, it provides one of the best training cum proving grounds for the office. Cabinet service is where a potential chief executive is observed and graded by multiple audiences, including the public at large.

In significant ways, ministers are more closely vetted by those who see them up- close, including civil servants and various national stakeholders. They are sized-up by their party faithful and opposition parties. There is relentless media scrutiny. Yet, there is a smaller though no less critical audience a future prime minister has to impress.

Cabinet is where the nation’s business is prioritized, and where fateful decisions are made affecting the country for generations. Only those who have sat in cabinet truly understand the burdens, the capacity to do so much good for so many, as well as the risk of doing great harm or not doing enough.

People with healthy egos and considerable ambition tend to sit in the cabinet, collaborating and competing. As they wrestle with endless decisions on a dizzying array of issues, they are constantly taking each other’s measure.

PERSPECTIVE

They assess each other as equals and identify who among them may be the best to serve as the first among equals or prime minister. They have a unique perspective. It is a perspective which considers many of the characteristics and skills needed in a potential prime minister at a particular stage in a country’s history.

Though the mild-mannered Clement Attlee did not possess the sizzling charisma of Winston Churchill, he was Labour’s choice to fight the 1945 British general election against the roaring lion who had just triumphantly led the United Kingdom through World War II.

Churchill and his Conservatives lost in a landslide to Atlee’s Labour Party which ushered in the most sweeping social and welfare reforms in British history, including the National Health Service.

Mr. Attlee obviously had to win public support. But before that he had to win the confidence of his party, parliamentary and cabinet colleagues, who were peers of great ambition, strong character and ability.

He had to be tested in terms of his judgement and ability to govern, steadiness under pressure and resilience, and what today we call multiple intelligences, including those of style and substance.

In the political realm, the former refers to one’s political and personal touch, the latter to intellectual capacity. That intellectual capacity includes an ability to appreciate the complexities of various issues, curiosity and a willingness to grow.

Having left the cabinet, the Bamboo Town MP seems more interested in making the case for himself as a future prime minister in the press. In so doing, he has removed himself from one of his toughest audiences as well as one of the best training grounds for prime minister.

There are newcomers who do not follow the traditional path to the ultimate political prize, though these tend to be the exception. And such exception demands exceptional politicians.

Barack Obama and David Cameron are young leaders who, despite relatively few years at the highest levels of national politics, proved exceptional enough to respectively become US President and British Prime Minister in record time.

In addition to impressing media, business and opinion leaders, both won over their political peers and party members and officials. Is Mr. McCartney casting himself in the likes of Messrs. Obama and Cameron? If so, he is not doing terribly well.

The country and his former cabinet colleagues know that he is ambitious. But that ambition does not appear to be tied to great purpose or ability. He has not offered the predicate for why he should be the nation’s chief executive.

In public statements and parliamentary interventions, Mr. McCartney has proven intellectually underwhelming and often glib, seemingly more comfortable with clichés and off the cuff remarks than substantive ideas or vision. Only his cabinet colleagues know how much -- or little -- he offered around the table.

COLLECTIVE

His contention that he left because of being underutilized and insufficiently challenged seems odd. Immigration is a substantial brief with considerable challenges. The rookie politician also had an extraordinary opportunity to demonstrate his judgement on the numerous issues which confronted the cabinet as a part of the principle of collective responsibility.

Instead of hunkering down and wrestling with the not so sexy issues and nuts and bolts of government, Mr. McCartney abruptly left. It was an unusual decision given the enormous opportunity and privilege.

Some feel that Mr. McCartney has charisma or style, making him popular with various supporters. But popularity or friends on Facebook is not synonymous with real support. He has also been described by some as being adept at public relations.

A facility with staging events and working the press is not the same as having a compelling message that is considered and serious. In party councils and parliamentary meetings, Mr. McCartney’s colleagues are underwhelmed.

His interventions in the House are rambling, his debating skills are not the strongest and his policy analysis is typically weak. On various immigration matters he often seemed to play to the gallery and nativist instincts.

Significant numbers of illegal migrants have been repatriated to their countries before and after Mr. McCartney’s time at Immigration. Further, he did not stay long enough to institute many of the reforms needed in immigration policy, including modernizing the Department of Immigration.

Mr. McCartney decided to leave cabinet at a moment of considerable historical significance. Instead of staying to help make the many momentous decisions during some of the more difficult days of the recent global financial crisis and now a tentative recovery, he left his post.

He was not in the mix when many of the tough calls were made. He stayed on the margins and in the press mostly noting what his former colleagues had done wrong and at times suggesting what he would have done.

Some observers suggest that Mr. McCartney is stylizing himself after Hubert Ingraham, who made his mark by leaving Sir Lynden Pindling’s cabinet and then retiring his former leader. The historic and character parallels between Mr. Ingraham and Mr. McCartney are weak, with the latter lacking the former’s prodigious intellectual and political skills, not to mention the issue of motive in each case.

TUTORIAL

To better understand Mr. Ingraham’s skills and hone his own, Mr. McCartney would have been wiser had he stayed in his cabinet to learn up-close from the successful prime minister he wishes to succeed. From Hubert Ingraham he would have enjoyed an unparalleled tutorial in political and executive leadership.

Mr. Ingraham knows that he must prepare for the future leadership of his party and the country after he leaves office. Towards this end, he has publicly noted that he is providing opportunities for a new generation of leaders. One of those was Branville McCartney, who appears to believe that he is ready to be prime minister now.

Many politicians have been felled or had their plans disrupted because of overreach. As he proceeds, Mr. McCartney may want to seek the wise counsel of the Grecian tragedies as the counsel he is keeping is failing him -- miserably.

He might wish to recall the fate of Icarus, who tumbled from great heights to the ground because of unbridled ego and hubris. In addition to the Greeks, Mr. McCartney may wish to immerse himself in the workings of cabinet government.

He may come to better appreciate that in his desire to become first among equals in the cabinet, he needs to demonstrate that he is truly a team player and a peer committed to collective responsibility instead of overweening personal ambition.

Unlike Clement Atlee, Barack Obama, David Cameron and Hubert Ingraham, Mr. McCartney has not come near to convincing his peers and political colleagues that he has the gravitas needed to be prime minister.

In his march of folly, he may wish to remember that he is seeking to become the Bahamian prime minister in a system of collective responsibility, not president of a system such as that of the United States. Yet even in the latter system, one has to win the support of political colleagues, something Mr. McCartney has utterly failed to do.

bahamapundit

Bahamas Blog International

Minister of Youth, Sports and Housing Neville Wisdom, under whose portfolio Junkanoo fell before the February Cabinet reshuffle, disputed a portion of the Auditor General most recent report

Minister Disputes Audit

 

 

 

 

By Candia Dames

Nassau, Bahamas

12 May 2006

 

 

 

Minister of Youth, Sports and Housing Neville Wisdom, under whose portfolio Junkanoo fell before the February Cabinet reshuffle, disputed a portion of the Auditor General's most recent report on Thursday as it related to the controversial 2002 million-dollar Junkanoo bleacher contract.

 

As reported by the Bahama Journal, the Auditor General said that based on documentation from the then Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture it appears that the contract for rental of the bleachers did not receive Cabinet approval before an agreement was signed between the ministry and Towers Scaffold Services INC.

 

But the minister said this is not so.

 

"The Cabinet approved the bleacher contract," he indicated. Mr. Wisdom said the contract was approved before it was signed.

 

The Auditor General noted that Section 58 of the Financial Regulations states that the Cabinet shall make all contracts for supplies, works and services required by the government for amounts in excess of $250,000.

 

But the report said that based on documentation from the ministry, the ministry entered an agreement with Towers Scaffold Services INC. on October 28, 2002. However, approval for the venture was noted on November 28, 2002.

 

Asked to explain this, Minister Wisdom said that oftentimes Cabinet conclusions do not come out immediately when decisions are made. He suggested that this might be the case as it relates to the Junkanoo bleacher contract, although he was not sure.

 

The report also said that an examination of smaller Junkanoo bleacher contracts awarded during the 2002/2003 season revealed that the contracting parties did not sign three contracts.

 

The three contracts, the report said, were awarded in the amounts of $1,800 each.

 

To this, Minister Wisdom said, "I know absolutely nothing about that."

 

He promised to give a more detailed response after reviewing the Auditor General's Report, which was released in very limited numbers.

 

Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee Brent Symonette, who is the Member of Parliament for Montagu, has continued to ask the government to provide each member of the committee with a copy of the report so that it can meet.

 

Mr. Symonette made his most recent request on the floor of the House on Wednesday evening.

 

The other members of the committee are Lucaya MP Neko Grant (FNM); Long Island MP Larry Cartwright (FNM); Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador MP Philip "Brave" Davis (PLP); and St. Thomas More MP Frank Smith (PLP).

 

Mr. Symonette told the Bahama Journal on Thursday that it's sad that the government has not been able to come up with five copies of the report for the members of the committee.

 

He said that when the committee meets it will call officials of the various ministries in for questioning.

 

He said the permanent secretary of the former Ministry of Youth, Sports and Culture will be among those called.

 

"We're going to ask for various contracts and ask when they were executed," Mr. Symonette said.

 

Asked whether the Auditor General's report that the ministry violated the financial regulations concerned him, he said, "It concerns me a lot."

 

"The auditor general asked the government to verify the information and the government failed to do so, and the auditor noted it," Mr. Symonette added.

 

"This is a very fundamental issue. [Minister Wisdom] never should have signed this contract without approval."

 

The auditor general said that relevant Cabinet conclusions regarding the Junkanoo arrangements were not forthcoming. Therefore, he relied on information from files at the ministry. The report was tabled in the House of Assembly several days ago.

 

After the million-dollar contract was executed to rent the bleachers, Minister Wisdom faced a firestorm in the House of Assembly over the arrangements.

 

At one point, he informed that, "Yes, a million dollars is being invested, but the return anticipated from the exercise is $3 million."

 

But the auditor general noted that the revenue for ticket sales was estimated at $2.1 million, but only $695,000 was realized.

 

The auditor general recommended that for future years the budgetary process should be "more realistic".

 

During the Junkanoo bleacher contract debacle, the Bahama Journal reported that a draft report from the accounting firm Deloitte & Touche had put losses to the Bahamian taxpayers at $1,189,562 during the Junkanoo season in question.

 

Amid criticisms from opposition forces, Minister Wisdom consistently denied that his ministry executed the bleacher contract without first getting the necessary approval from Cabinet.

 

With the newly released Auditor General's Report resurrecting the controversy, it's likely that he will face further questions about the contract.

 

Prime Minister Perry Christie now has ministerial responsibility for the Junkanoo parades, which come under the Culture portfolio.

The Constitutional Commission: The Bahamas should be a Democratic Parliamentary Republic with the Head of State being The President

The Constitutional Commission Recommends that The English Monarch no Longer Be Head of State of The Bahamas and The Office of The Governor General Be Abolished

Abolish Governor General

By Candia Dames

Nassau, The Bahamas

23 March 2006

Saying that the time has come for a Bahamian head of state to be elected by both Houses of Parliament, the Constitutional Commission is recommending that the English monarch no longer be head of state of The Bahamas and the office of the governor general be abolished.

The Commission also says in its preliminary report presented to Prime Minister Perry Christie at his Cable Beach office on Wednesday that The Bahamas should be a democratic parliamentary republic with the head of state being the president.

"Executive powers shall continue to be exercised by the cabinet with the head of government being the prime minister," the report recommends.

It also says the head of state should be a citizen of The Bahamas.

The Commission found it "curious" that there is no requirement for the holder of the office of governor general to be a citizen of The Bahamas.

"Because of the method of appointment of the governor general, it hardly seems logical that the person appointed to this office would be a non-Bahamian," the report says.  "To remove all doubt it should be declared that the governor general or head of state be a Bahamian citizen."

The report says it is apparent that the position of head of state of The Bahamas is not seen in reality to be the Queen of Great Britain, who constitutionally is also the Queen of The Bahamas.

It adds, "People appear not to be troubled by the concept and are apparently satisfied to regard the governor general, although wrongly, to be the head of state of The Bahamas.  The reaction to the proposition that the queen is constitutionally queen of The Bahamas was usually met with silence."

The Commission notes on page 12 of its preliminary report that the abolition of the English monarch as head of state of the Bahamas is part of the evolutionary process toward a truly peoples government, not one of the Queen’s dominions, but part of the Commonwealth.

The report says, "The Commission would wish the Bahamian people to focus on whether the position of a foreign monarch and one that is shared with many other countries, is reconcilable with the founding provisions which state The Bahamas shall be a ‘sovereign’ democratic state.

"We cannot on the one hand assert ourselves as a sovereign country and a free and independent actor in international affairs while relying on the legal fiction of ‘Her Majesty in Parliament’ and ‘Her Majesty’s Government’ in the ‘speech from the throne’ to give legitimacy to our government."

Additionally, the report says it is conceded that in an increasingly interdependent world the concept of sovereignty as it denotes a self-sufficient national territory is waning; sovereignty must denote an independent legal entity, where some supreme body has virtually unlimited capacity to make laws.

It notes that although the existence and validity and rules in the country’s legal system are determined by reference to a written constitution, those laws still require the participation of the ‘Queen in Parliament’ to be properly enacted.

"This is inconsistent with being a completely independent legal entity," the report says.

The report reveals that during its consultations on every inhabited Bahamian island, except three cays in the Exumas, there were mixed feelings about the retention of the Queen of England as Queen of The Bahamas and head of state of The Bahamas.

It notes that there was a significant number of persons who expressed no opinion on the institution of monarchy; there were others who were of the opinion that the status quo should remain, while others were of the view that this link to the British Monarchy was inconsistent with Bahamian independence and sovereignty and should be severed while preserving membership with the Commonwealth of which queen is symbolic head.

The Commission recommends that the provision of the Constitution that permits the chief justice and the president of the senate to serve as acting head of state should be removed to avoid a conflict of interest.

Deputies should be appointed from among eminent citizens to fill any vacancies of that office, the report says.

Prime Minister Perry Christie Says No To Cabinet Shuffle

Christie said he disagreed with the notion that making changes to his Cabinet was a must because it is a sign of good governance

No Cabinet Reshuffle

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

03/05/2004

Saying that he does not want to disrupt major projects underway in various ministries, Prime Minister Perry Christie has shelved plans to make "adjustments" to his Cabinet.

"I have to have a real purpose for changing because the results are important," said Mr. Christie, who was a guest on the Radio Love 97 Programme "Jones and Company" which aired Sunday.

He said he disagreed with the notion that making changes to his Cabinet was a must because it is a sign of good governance.

Rumors regarding the prime minister's planned Cabinet reshuffle have been rife over the past several weeks, with Mr. Christie indicating to the Journal at the beginning of the year that he planned to make changes to his team.

At the time, he said, "The prime minister must always examine his government with a view to making adjustments and most certainly I am looking at making adjustments."

But on the Sunday programme, Mr. Christie revealed a change of heart.

He explained that he did not want to draw attention to a small number of ministers and ministries by making one or two changes.

"So as not to put undue pressure on one or two ministries by making adjustments, I decided to wait for a certain process to complete itself," the prime minister said.

He indicated that he is generally pleased with the job being done by his ministers, pointing to several examples.

"I realized that in tourism, for example, I had a minister in the middle of new marketing programmes that have resulted, that will continue to result in, an improvement of [the industry]," the prime minister said.

He added that if he were to make changes to the portfolio of Works and Utilities Minister Bradley Roberts, it could further delay the New Providence road improvement programme many people are anxious to see start and finish.

Pointing to Labour and Immigration Minister Vincent Peet, Mr. Christie said in considering whether to make adjustments, he realized that, "I had a Minister of Labour who had proven to be acceptable on the part of and had credibility with labour unions."

In addition, he pointed to what he indicated was a fine job being done by Minister of Housing and National Insurance Shane Gibson.

"I had a Minister of Housing who, in 22 months had build 558 houses, [compared to the former government] that built in ten years 780 houses," Mr. Christie said.  "So I had a minister who was functioning efficiently."

In recent weeks, government officials have been pointing to their record on building houses, as an example of what they say is significant progress being made by the administration.

In the case of Transport and Aviation Minister Glenys Hanna Martin, Mr. Christie said it would be difficult to change her right now, given that she is working to meet a crucial international July deadline for the upgrade of port security throughout the country.

He also said that it would be unwise to reassign Youth, Sports and Culture Neville Wisdom who is working on very important youth projects, including the implementation of a National Youth Service.

Mr. Christie said, "I had to take stock of what I call the complex nature of governance and judge what I do by the results I hope to achieve and the results I hope to achieve will be attainable if I delayed what I intended to do."

Prime Minister Perry Christie To Do The Cabinet Shuffle

But Christie said he did not want to go into details regarding the specific changes he planned to make to his Cabinet

PM Finalizing Shuffle

By Candia Dames

candiadames@hotmail.com

02/01/2004

Prime Minister Perry Christie has put speculation to rest, indicating that he is finalizing plans to shuffle his Cabinet.

"The prime minister must always examine his government with a view to making adjustments and most certainly I am looking at making adjustments," Mr. Christie told the Bahama Journal recently.

But he said he did not want to go into details regarding the specific changes he planned to make to his Cabinet.

Rumours regarding his planned Cabinet shuffle have been rife over the past several weeks, but Mr. Christie had been tight-lipped on the matter.

The Journal was informed by a source close to the government that one of the changes the prime minister was considering is making Financial Services and Investments Minister Allyson Maynard-Gibson Attorney General.  Mrs. Maynard-Gibson would still retain her present portfolio, according to the source.

With the many challenges being faced in improving the national examination average from a "D", it would probably come as no surprise to many if changes were made to the portfolio of present Attorney General and Minister of Education Alfred Sears.

The Official Opposition has long been calling for changes to the Cabinet - demanding the removal of certain ministers from government altogether.

Free National Movement Leader Senator Tommy Turnquest told the Journal Friday that, "We've made it very clear over the past few weeks that we think to have a minister responsible for both Education and the Attorney General's Office is not in the best interest of the education system or the legal system of The Bahamas.  We believe there ought to be some changes in that regard."

Again calling for the removal of Neville Wisdom as the Minister responsible for culture, Mr. Turnquest added, "We believe that after two consecutive years of having controversy in Junkanoo there ought to be movement in that regard and we ought to move Neville Wisdom from the portfolio of culture that is responsible for Junkanoo.

"We believe that he ought to be removed out of the Cabinet altogether.  But at a minimum, he ought to be relieved of the portfolio of culture, which includes Junkanoo."

Mr. Turnquest also said the Official Opposition believes that Trade and Industry Minister Leslie Miller should be sacked, given the fact that The Bahamas Agricultural and Industrial Corporation has already been removed from his portfolio, which Mr. Turnquest said was the main aspect of his responsibilities.

"Leslie Miller publicly said he did not know what was going on at BAIC and for a Minister to say that about a matter under his portfolio is condemnation in itself," Mr. Turnquest told the Journal.  "For that statement alone he ought to have been relieved of his Cabinet responsibility."

But Minister Miller's response to that was that, "Tommy Turnquest needs to get a life and find something constructive to do for 2004."

"I don't have time for foolishness," said Minister Miller, when asked to respond to Mr. Turnquest's suggestion.  "What about his mishandling at the Ministry of Tourism?  He's not even the true leader of the Opposition."

He said he does not pay attention to anything Mr. Turnquest has to say.

But Minister Miller added, "I wish him all the best for 2004."

In his interview with the Bahama Journal, Mr. Turnquest also said one of the biggest disappointments in the Cabinet has been Glenys Hanna-Martin, the minister responsible for transport and aviation.

"I had very high hopes for her because she is a very intelligent person...but I have been very disappointed with her over the past 12 months...I think she ought to be removed to a more suitable portfolio," he said.  "I believe she has the skills to perform in government, I just have been disappointed with her performance in government.  She hasn't done a good job in that portfolio.

"In terms of looking at it objectively, those are comments I think are shared by a cross section of the Bahamian society."

But he added, "We also accept the fact that the appointment of the Cabinet is the prerogative of the prime minister."

However, Mr. Turnquest charged that "the country has been drifting aimlessly without a clear national plan and the prime minister ought now to seriously consider appointing men and women in portfolios best suited to them as we move forward because we do want the Bahamas to succeed."