Oil drilling in The Bahamas... Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC)... Perry Christie, Philip "Brave" Davis, The Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), and their dirty conflicting ways...

By Dennis Dames:

The response of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) deputy leader; Mr. Philip “Brave” Davis - to the question of conflict of interest in relations to his law firm’s connection to the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC), instigates more questions than answers.

Mr. Davis was quoted as saying the following in an article by one Dana Smith in The Tribune of April 27, 2012 entitled – DNA Demand Christie’s Resignation: "How does it become a conflict? I'm not in government. When I'm there, then the question might arise, then I'll know what I have to do."

But, this is general election season in The Bahamas; and Mr. “Brave” Davis and his consultant to Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) party leader – Mr. Perry Christie are offering themselves as alternatives to the existing administration via the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP).  Is Mr. Philip “Brave” Davis suggesting that things only become a potential conflict with a company that’s seeking to drill for oil in The Bahamas - which his law firm represents, only if - the Progressive Liberal Party is successful in defeating the governing Free National Movement (FNM) – on May 07, 2012?

This is scandalous!  Mr. “Brave” Davis, deputy leader of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) – has unknowingly accepted in his mind to probably start a government with a major scandal of international proportion; only if we - the Bahamian people innocently decide to vote for an oil scandal ridden gang.  The conflict of interest is in full swing Mr. ‘Brave” Davis; and it’s a pity that you cannot see the forest for the trees in this regard.

Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) wants to drill for oil in our waters and the Bahamian people doesn’t know the details of the deal, nor the environmental risks to our marine ecosystem; it is a major decision which requires reflective national consensus Messrs. Christie and Davis.

If it’s not a conflict of interest Mr. Davis, then tell the Bahamian People about Mr. Christie, the Progressive Liberal Party’s and your plans for Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) and Drilling for oil in The Bahamas before we vote on May 07, 2012 or face deserved rejection at the polls for your dirty conflicting ways.


Caribbean Blog International

Resignations sought for the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader; Perry Christie ...and Deputy; Philip "Brave" Davis ...over their connections to the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC)... ...The company wants to drill for oil in The Bahamas - in the face of widespread environmental concerns

DNA Demand Christie's Resignation

By DANA SMITH
dsmith@tribunemedia.net



THE DNA is calling for the resignation of PLP leader Perry Christie over his connection to the Bahamas Petroleum Company.


DNA deputy leader Chris Mortimer, Montagu candidate Ben Albury and a group of party supporters staged a demonstration yesterday morning outside the Office of the Opposition on Parliament Street.

They were protesting recent media reports that quote Mr Christie as stating the law firm representing BPC had consulted with him at some point in the past.

Davis & Co, the law firm of PLP deputy leader Philip "Brave" Davis, represents BPC along with Graham Thompson & Co.

The company wants to drill for oil in the Bahamas, but the DNA and others have raised environmental concerns.

Mr Albury said: "Mr Christie is the one who said he's involved, he admits to being a consultant . . .

"I would for like to ask Mr Christie to do the honourable thing and step down as leader of the opposition and resign as a candidate for Centreville."

Mr Albury added that Mr Davis should "definitely step down" as well.

Mr Christie could not be reached for comment, but Mr Davis denied there is any conflict of interest.

"How does it become a conflict? I'm not in government. When I'm there, then the question might arise, then I'll know what I have to do," he said.

April 27, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham accuses Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie of being a lobbyist for the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC)... which wants to drill for oil in Bahamian waters

Ingraham: Christie is an oil lobbyist

Ingraham attacks PLP’s ‘Bahamians first’ pledge

By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham last night turned up the heat on Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) Leader Perry Christie, accusing him of being a lobbyist for the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC), which wants to drill for oil in Bahamian waters.

Christie has acknowledged that the oil company has benefited from legal advice he has given as a consultant for Davis & Co., the law firm of PLP Deputy Leader Philip Brave Davis, which represents BPC.

At a rally in Rock Sound, Eleuthera, Ingraham spun the PLP’s ‘Bahamians first’ campaign theme, telling the crowd, “For me, putting Bahamians first is a solemn duty.

“It is not a slogan I throw around in order to win votes.  Putting Bahamians first is a duty I have sworn to uphold each time I placed my hand on the Bible and promised to abide by the constitution and protect the interests of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas.”

The prime minister added, “If Perry Christie really wanted to put you and every other Bahamian first, he would not have agreed to become a paid consultant for a foreign oil company.  This has cast doubt on where his true allegiance will be when it’s decision time.”

Ingraham said his (Ingraham’s) only interest is the interest of Bahamians.

Christie has said he provides advice to the law firm and is not a consultant for BPC directly.  When asked about the issue last week, Christie told The Nassau Guardian, “If there is an issue they need advice on, whether or not they need someone to speak to the issue of environmental impact [studies], the issue of whether or not in my judgment a matter is worthy for the government to approve, whether or not an application is ready, whether or not they should employ and who should go on the board of directors, whatever views they ask of the firm, in the event that firm regards it as necessary, they would consult me on it. Those are the services I provide.”

But Ingraham said last night the service Christie is providing is called lobbying.

“Is it a mere coincidence that a foreign oil company decided to hire as consultants and pay handsomely, the two most senior leaders of the Official Opposition, and potentially two senior leaders of the executive branch in the country in which they are seeking to drill for oil?” he asked.

He told voters they must decide whether they find Christie’s actions acceptable.

“There must be no question or appearance of the possibility of a grave conflict of interest, or the potential for secret deals which can compromise the individual who serves as your prime minister,” Ingraham said.

The prime minister told voters that they should have no doubt where he stands on this issue.

“A government led by me will not agree to any drilling for oil in The Bahamas until all necessary and appropriate regulations are in place, and until we are fully and competently in a position to regulate such activity, so as to protect our environment and that of the world’s ocean beyond from harmful and risky activity in our country and in our waters,” Ingraham said.

“...We are not now in a position to regulate and oversee drilling operations in our waters.  My greatest obligation is to do what I think is the right thing to do at any given time to protect the best interests of you, the Bahamian people, and that of future generations.

“I will not take any deliberate action to cause harm to our country, regardless of the promised financial reward for a select few consultants and legal representatives.  We in the FNM do not go that way.  We accept that we are different, distinctly different from them.”

Ingraham also said Jerome Gomez, the PLP candidate for Killarney, was BPC’s resident country manager before it set up its own office in The Bahamas.

The prime minister told the crowd that elections in difficult economic times demand that leadership be a principal issue.

“These are times for strong and decisive leadership; leadership that will make the tough choices.  This is no time for wavering and waffling,” he said. “This is no time for talk and more talk.  This is a time for action.

“I offer you on behalf of the Free National Movement proven leadership.  I offer you accountable and transparent government.  I offer you clean hands.  I pledge again to you a government that will deliver.”

Apr 26, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

Will the Drilling For Oil Issue Decide This 2012 General Election?

Will Drilling For Oil Decide This Election?

tribune242 editorial


 
 
“The approval of drilling for oil in the pristine waters of The Bahamas is among the most momentous decisions that any Government of The Bahamas will ever have to make,” Prime Minister Ingraham told Grand Bahamians at a rally last night.

“This decision by your Government should never be influenced by any financial relationship that exists between the company seeking the permit and its paid consultants and attorneys.

“It is a decision with wide ramifications that will affect the very nature and essence of who we are as a country,” he said.

This is why we were shocked to learn that Opposition Leader Perry Christie is an adviser to the law firm that represents the Bahamas Petroleum Company that expects to receive licences shortly to start drilling for oil in our waters. This is probably one of the most important decisions that the next administration will have to make.

The law firm of Philip “Brave” Davis is listed as BPC’s lawyers with Mr Davis, deputy leader of the PLP, having retained Mr Christie as a BPC adviser.

“If there is an issue they need advice on,” said Mr Christie, “whether or not they need someone to speak to the issue of environmental impact (studies), the issue of whether or not in my judgment a matter is worthy for the government to approve, whether or not an application is ready, whether or not they should employ and who go on the board of directors, whatever views they ask of the firm regards it as necessary, they would consult me on it. Those are the services I provide.”

No matter how much these men might assure Bahamians that the best interests of the country will come first should they become the next government, which one of you would trust such an important decision to them? Wasn’t it Mr Christie who found every excuse in the book to absolve his ministers of their transgressions when they should have been fired? The Greenberg, Quinlan, and Rosner report attributed the PLP loss of the 2007 election to Mr Christie’s perceived weakness and scandal-ridden government.

These are not qualifications for a second chance

April 25, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International

...if the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is re-elected ...its leaders’ ‘relationship’ with the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) would impact whatever decision they make in relation to the company’s bid to drill for oil in Bahamian waters ...says The Free National Movement (FNM)

FNM fears conflict in any PLP oil drilling decision

By Candia Dames
Guardian News Editor
candia@nasguard.com

The Free National Movement (FNM) said yesterday that if the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) is re-elected, its leaders’ ‘relationship’ with the Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC) would impact whatever decision they make in relation to the company’s bid to drill for oil in Bahamian waters.

PLP Leader Perry Christie last week confirmed that BPC benefited from advice he gave as a consultant to Davis & Co., the law firm which represents Bahamas Petroleum Company.

Christie’s confirmation came after Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said his administration would not allow oil drilling, and suggested that the PLP leader was providing consultancy work for BPC.

Christie said the working relationship with Davis & Co., the law firm owned by PLP Deputy Leader Philip ‘Brave’ Davis, began after his party lost the 2007 general election.

The FNM said, “Perry Christie promises that, if elected, his role as a consultant to the Bahamas

Petroleum Company will not influence his government’s decision on allowing BPC to drill in Andros in 2013.

“Perry (Christie) cannot think that Bahamians don’t see through this empty statement. Bahamians know that the PLP record is not one of ethical clarity and transparency...”, said the statement sent by press@fnm2012.org.

But Christie said in an interview with The Nassau Guardian last week, “It’s not a conflict because the advice I’m giving now has nothing to do with any decisions I [will] make as prime minister.

“What a Cabinet minister must do is declare [his] interests and ensure that it is clearly understood that in the past or present he’s had a relationship [with a company].”

The FNM said senior members of the PLP, who would have a say in granting the exploration license to the Bahamas Petroleum Company, are deeply intertwined with the company.

On its website, under company advisors, BPC lists the law firm Davis & Co., run by Davis, as part of its Bahamian legal team.

The law firm of former PLP attorney general Sean McWeeney (Graham Thompson & Co.) is listed as the second firm representing BPC in The Bahamas. McWeeney is a partner in the firm.

BPC’s website also lists PLP candidate for Killarney Jerome Gomez as its resident manager.

“Believing that these relationships will not influence the contractual process to the benefit of BPC requires a level of blind trust in Christie and the PLP — a trust that the record clearly shows neither deserve,” the FNM said.

“If the PLP is elected, the Bahamas Petroleum Company will be another one of many on the long list of PLP scandals.”

BPC said yesterday it believes it has significantly exceeded all license commitments and obligations with cumulative expenditure in excess of $50 million.

“The company is already working to fulfill the increased requirements of this next three-year phase,” BPC said.

Apr 24, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

If we want to encourage the best and the brightest citizens to enter into the elective political arena... we should seek to eliminate the observation of U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton that: “Elections are more often bought than won”

Campaign financing: A better way

Consider this

By Philip C. Galanis

“We need real campaign finance reform to loosen the grip of special interests on politics." - Tom Daschle

 

Every five years around election time, incessant lip service is paid to campaign financing.  It can only be lip service because after the ballots have been cast, counted and catalogued, the notion of campaign finance reform retires to hibernation – that is, until the next general election.  Therefore, this week, we would like to Consider This…what practical approaches can we realistically take regarding how we finance political campaigns in The Bahamas?

Unquestionably, politics has become an extremely expensive exercise.  When one considers the cost of political rallies, paraphernalia, including T-shirts and other garments now available, flags, posters, signage, printing of flyers, advertisements, including newspaper, radio and television broadcasts and commercials, the cost is staggering.  Let’s not forget the direct cost of personnel employed by political parties; the cost of constituency offices, sometimes four or five, particularly in the Family Islands; the cost of electricity, water, and telephones; the cost of food and beverages; of political consultants; and the printing of party platforms.  When these and other costs are considered, the real cost of staging a general election could very easily cost $250,000 per constituency or nearly $10 million per party.  So how are political parties expected to finance such a mammoth undertaking?

Using the public purse

It has become commonplace for the government of the day to use the power of the public purse to significantly finance its party’s political campaign.  We observed this practice when the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) was in power; we witnessed it in the by-election in Elizabeth two years ago; and we are seeing it again in the current general election.  While this has been a common practice, the Free National Movement (FNM) government seems to have taken this phenomenon to new heights.

Shortly after announcing the general election of 2012, the government launched a record contract signing marathon.  The $12 million contract for the construction of a new clinic in North Abaco and a multimillion-dollar contract for a new hospital in Exuma are a few examples of this.

Last weekend, amidst great public fanfare at police headquarters, the prime minister awarded $1 million to charitable organizations.  Ironically, this is the same government that – only one year earlier – reduced the government’s subvention to such organizations during the annual budget debate in the House of Assembly.  This is the same government that discontinued the extremely effective YEAST program that provided a positive prototype for young Bahamian men at risk and the same government that canceled the effective and internationally celebrated urban renewal program established by the PLP.

No matter which party is in power, an intelligent and discerning public should look askance at the government of the day exploiting and abusing the public purse in order to win votes after elections have been called.

Campaign contributions

In The Bahamas, political campaigns are predominantly financed by contributions from persons, companies, and organizations that believe in the democratic process and want to ensure that the message of the political party that they support is widely and successfully disseminated.

In the absence of campaign finance laws, there are no restrictions on who can contribute to a political party and how much they can donate.  Accordingly, anyone -- Bahamians and foreigners – can contribute any amount to anyone at any time without any accountability whatsoever.  The real question that we must address for the future health of our democracy is whether this is a desirable practice?

It has become customary for political contributions to be made in private, sometimes on the condition of confidentiality and often in secrecy with only a select few members of the party knowledgeable regarding the source of the funds.

Campaign 2012 has seen a new development in political funding.  During the last few mass rallies, the prime minister has publicly appealed from the podium for campaign contributions, describing it as a further deepening of our democracy by allowing the public to become investors in his party.  While there is absolutely nothing wrong with this, it is unprecedented and uncharacteristic.  We have never before seen this prime minister – or any other for that matter – beg for money from a public podium.

It therefore begs the question: why has he done so now, during what he says is his last campaign?  He alluded to the answer to this question on Thursday past at a mass rally on R. M. Bailey Park when he said that he will not tolerate anyone in his Cabinet who has financially benefited from conflicts of interest.

We believe that he made this appeal for financial contributions because, while the FNM is still well-funded by those wealthy interest groups who support him in order to continue reaping his government’s largess, some of his traditional sources of funding are less generous than they have been in the past.  This is possibly because he has cut some of his more financially well-connected candidates for reasons already stated and reiterated again from that podium last Thursday in a purposefully vague but very revealing way.

Campaign finance reform

Clearly, as the prime minister is opening party funding up to the masses in ways never seen before, the time has come to enact campaign financing legislation.  There are several things that can be done in order to impose strict controls for campaign fund-raising, primarily to level the playing field and to minimize disparate levels of funding campaigns by the various political parties.  Campaign financing legislation should also establish disclosure requirements with respect to funding and spending in elections.

Such a law could introduce statutory limits on contributions by individuals, organizations and companies, which would remove the influence of big money from politics and should also prohibit foreign influences from invading the local political process.

There should also be limits on large potential donors to prevent them from gaining extraordinary political access or favorable legislation or other concessions in return for their contributions.  Campaign finance laws should also provide for the capping of such funding and for the disclosure of sources of campaign contributions and expenditures.  It should also limit or prohibit government contractors from making contributions with respect to such elections.

Campaign financing legislation could even provide for matching funds by the government for all the candidates in order to ensure that the playing field truly is level and to enhance clean elections.

Finally, in order to more vigilantly protect the public purse, the law should strictly prohibit a government from signing any new contracts after general or by-elections are called.

Conclusion

Campaigns will become more expensive as time progresses.  As we mature politically, we should seek to ensure that political parties operate on a level playing field and remove the barriers to participation in the democratic process because of a lack of funding.  If we want to encourage the best and the brightest citizens to enter into the elective political arena, we should seek to eliminate the observation of U.S. Representative Lee Hamilton that: “Elections are more often bought than won”.

 

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

Apr 23, 2012

thenassauguardian

Caribbean Blog International

The most pressing issue in The Bahamas today is crime and the fear of crime... highlighted by the fact that the murder rate is going in the wrong direction - up

Party By Party: Where The Candidates Stand On Crime


 

By LAMECH JOHNSON
Tribune Staff Reporter
ljohnson@tribunemedia.net



THE Bahamas put the world on alert in early 2010 after a country which is noted for its sun, sand and sea racked up 87 murders the year before.

Crimewave is a word too easily used by politicians and the media, but statistics showed crime was on the up, and for a nation of just 350,000, dependent on tourism, it was a worrying trend.

By the end of 2010, the country surpassed the previous record with an extra seven murders.

Bahamians at every level in society were puzzled as to what was going on, what 2011's numbers would be and what the government was going to do about it. The murder figure reached 127 for 2011.

The most pressing issue in the Bahamas today is crime and the fear of crime, highlighted by the fact that the murder rate is going in the wrong direction - up.

Democratic National Alliance leader Branville McCartney couldn't have worded it better during his party's anti-crime and violence march in Bay Street last Wednesday. He said things would get worse if there was not an immediate intervention.

The sentiments from the man who wants to be the country's next Prime Minister are not new. His rivals, current Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham and opposition leader Perry Christie, have already said the same thing.

Mr Ingraham and Mr Christie have blamed each other for the rise in crime levels. The DNA leader has blamed both of them - branding them "failures".

Behind the rhetoric, angry faces and gesticulations, claim, counter claim and overused insults like "abysmal failure", what is their answer to beating crime?

What has caused this spike in crime? Do the politicians even have an answer?

Crime exists in every part of the world where there is civilisation, the same way that certain weak drinks are present at almost every party adults go to. If those drinks get spiked, there's chaos.

At the rate the country is going and with the world watching through their TVs, computer screens and smart phones, it is only a matter of time before this rising crime leads to the wrong kind of tourist being held up during a nature tour, robbed on Cable Beach or attacked with a cutlass in their hotel room on a Family Island. A celebrity or a police chief from another country.

Crime is one of, if not the biggest, concern for the voters going into the May 7 elections and the three leaders and their respective teams know it.

In 14 days, more than 170,000 voters will go to the polls to select a new member of parliament for the 38 constituencies up for grabs.

Marking an X next to the name of an DNA, FNM, PLP or independent candidate will ultimately decide which party will be the next government for the next five years.

How will the three leaders and their parties, DNA, FNM and PLP, match up and overcome the Goliath that is crime?

The FNM and the DNA have revealed their manifestos for public viewing so far and looking at both documents, crime is the top priority. The PLP has been very vocal about their plans for fighting crime.

The FNM, hoping to regain the trust of Bahamians, has released its full manifesto and addresses crime as a part of its "National Security Strategic Plan", Tough on Crime and Tough on the Causes of Crime.

The FNM before outlining its plan, stated what it had done and what it thinks is the root cause of the crime surge: "Trade and abuse" of illegal narcotics over the past several decades.

The party, according to its manifesto said it had "modernized and better equipped the Royal Bahamas Police Force, passed and implemented tough anti-crime legislation and improved conditions in our legal, judicial and prison systems."

The party, in its document goes on: "To complement these efforts, we have also worked with educators, social workers and other citizens to implement new prevention programmes"

Going forward, the FNM's goal is to have a "modern, efficient crime fighting machine," through a "properly manned, trained and equipped" police force "to prevent crime where possible, detect crime when it occurs and bring those responsible to account before the courts."

The FNM proposes to hire an extra 250 officers; specifically train officers from remote Family Islands to serve their communities; combine technology with community policing to strengthen crime prevention; ensure continued funding for police; create more police patrols and increase presence in neighbourhoods.

The party proposes "continued and adequate funding" of the judiciary, to complete the construction of the judicial complex and Supreme Court, and the appointment of a resident magistrate in Andros.

They are also seeking to empower magistrates, "in appropriate cases", to use their power to implement "alternative sentencing and restorative programmes to reduce the amount of non-violent juveniles returning to prison."

The FNM plans to "accelerate prison reform initiatives" to rehabilitate non-violent offenders so they are able to be reintegrated into society.

Weekly drug testing will be introduced, and a remand centre will be constructed in Grand Bahama.

The Defence Force is also a part of the FNM's plan to fight crime. It wants to increase manpower on the force by 180 and introduce a reserves list similar to that of the police force.

The Defence Force is also expected to receive additional equipment in the form of sea and aircraft to help in the fight against illegal migration, poaching and drug smuggling.

While not as detailed at the governing party, the DNA's The Vision 2012 and Beyond manifesto lists crime as the first issue to be tackled after the election.

The party will focus on six areas:

■Enforce laws without political interference.

■Support the development and strengthening of a Bahamian criminal justice system that works.

■Develop a comprehensive and research-proven system to rehabilitate offenders, including academic programmes, and work readiness and skill building programmes.

■Commit necessary finance and people to the Royal Bahamas Police Force and the Royal Bahamas Defence Force to ensure "they are in the best position to be effective in their roles".

■Ensure the enforcement of capital punishment and that bail is not granted for accused murderers.

There are some similarities between the FNM and the DNA's plans.

Both parties are looking to strengthen the capacity of the judiciary and the various law enforcement agencies. They also recognise the importance of reforming and educating prisoners to reduce the number of repeat offenders.

The similarities end there.

The DNA has publicly stated its intention to carry out the death penalty. There is no mention of capital punishment in the FNM's manifesto.

The FNM government removed the Magistrates Courts' discretion to grant bail for murder and other serious offences. However, persons eligible who can prove they should to be granted bail can be given a bond by the Supreme Court.

Is the DNA proposing to support this move? Regarding the death penalty, how will the DNA get past the ruling of the Privy Council, based in the UK?

Mr McCartney answered this question last Wednesday.

"We're making sure that if it goes to the Privy Council, we'll have the laws in place that will force their hands when there is a conviction on murder, that the death penalty will be enforced."

What is the PLP's stance on capital punishment?

The country will find out when the party releases its manifesto for the country's 170,000 voters to see.

People will then be better placed to cast their votes in the ongoing fight against this particular Goliath.

April 23, 2012

tribune242

Caribbean Blog International