The Tribune

CONFLICT of interest … in such a small country with so many Bahamians mixed up in each others businesses, conflict of interest will always be the out-sized elephant in the room.

With each passing day Chapter 11 in Delaware’s bankruptcy court becomes more attractive.

In that jurisdiction, removed from the petty politics now smothering the Baha Mar resort, lawyers with no axe to grind and no family to protect, would be in a better position to adjudicate a bankruptcy protection case than the name-calling fight now in progress on the local scene.

The Delaware court – although one side might not like its decision – at least could not be accused of conflict of interest.

It was conflict of interest that caused Justice Ian Winder to adjourn to August 19 the proceedings on government’s petition to wind up Baha Mar. China Construction America (CCA) had sent a letter to Attorney General Allyson Maynard Gibson in the wee hours of the morning objecting to government’s appointment of three PriceWaterhouseCoopers professionals as Baha Mar’s provisional liquidators. CCA claimed conflict of interest.

Gowon Bowe of Price Waterhouse — one of those chosen by government — who is also chairman of the Bahamas Chamber of Commerce and Employers Confederation – explained that government’s intention was not to stop and sell the property, “but to take it out of the hands of the party with emotion and the contention, and put it into the hands of an independent entity.”

Sounds simple, but not to the ears of foreign investors who see it as a threatened confiscation of an investor’s property.

The argument is between the developer and the contractor, with the developer calling into question the contractor’s standard of work, and inability to meet the resort’s opening deadlines. In the end it was the contractor who downed the tools — and in our language virtually announced: “I quit.” The $3.5 billion Cable Beach resort, almost completed, was shut down.

We wonder which of our readers being a property owner who had a deadline to meet, but was dealing with what appears to be a non-compliant contractor, would not be emotional?

And on what grounds would any government have to snatch the developer’s property from him?

It would seem that CCA was also emotional when it downed its tools, and refused to complete the job.

And so whose emotions are being punished?

This is a $3.5 billion resort with thousands of Bahamians depending on jobs they are about to lose, and a potential liquidator talks about “emotions”. Come now, let’s get real!

Attorney General Allyson Maynard Gibson, government’s lead negotiator in the dispute, is also under fire.

Yes, you guessed it — conflict of interest.

For weeks, there have been rumours suggesting that certain persons on government’s negotiating team are conflicted.

Last week the Attorney General admitted in a radio show that although she was not conflicted in doing her job as the negotiator, in fact two of her daughters, like many others, have leased shops in the yet-to-be-opened resort.

She said that Prime Minister Christie was aware of the situation.

However, it in no way influenced her negotiating position, she said. Yesterday, she went even further.

Her husband, well known and successful businessman Max Gibson, had, with other business colleagues, also leased rental space in Baha Mar.

However, she insisted, this in no way influenced her work as attorney general and lead government negotiator in trying to find a way to negotiate to completion what was to be the largest resort in the Caribbean.

The Opposition has called for her resignation, because of conflict of interest.

Before Mrs Maynard-Gibson’s revelation last week, independent Fort Charlotte MP Dr Andre Rollins said it would be an indictment on the Christie administration if a sitting member of Cabinet had ownership interest in Baha Mar.

This recalls an interesting case in 2001 when a minister in former prime minister Hubert Ingraham’s cabinet, found himself in a similar situation, which certain members of the PLP government even today will not let him forget.

However, when it was brought to his attention he immediately stepped down.

In 2001 two former ministers of the Pindling cabinet claimed that the Bahamas faced a “constitutional crisis” because then Deputy Prime Minister Brent Symonette had “admitted” that his family had shares in a company awarded a government contract.

They called for his immediate resignation from politics.

Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, through the Minister of Transport, asked Mr Symonette to resign as chairman of the Airport Authority for apparent conflict of interest in awarding a contract to a paving company in which he had an interest.

Six days after the matter was drawn to his attention, Mr Symonette resigned.

Today he admits that in his efforts to get the job done quickly to prevent the threatened downgrade of Nassau International Airport by the FAA, and to save the taxpayers money, he acted without consulting the Airport Authority’s Board of Directors - most of whom were out of the country, preventing him from getting a quorum to call a meeting.

However, on their return, they met and ratified his decision.

He later divested himself of the shares transferring them in trust for his children.

Interestingly enough it was Bradley Roberts, now PLP chairman, but then MP for Grants Town, who levelled the charges of corruption and conflict of interest against the Ingraham government.

Behind the scenes Mr Roberts was himself in personal conflict with Airport Authority chairman Symonette. Mr Roberts was a shareholder in a company that had a monopoly on all food and beverage handled at the airport, both in the airport building and for all incoming aircraft.

This monopoly embraced the whole airport area as far as Coral Harbour, some claimed it took in about a five-mile radius.

At the time that this monopoly was being challenged, Mr Symonette happened to be the chairman in the background asking the unpleasant questions.

And so Bradley Roberts’ exposé in parliament was no surprise.

But today all of this unpleasantness can be avoided if a completely independent Delaware court provided the bankruptcy protection that this enterprise needs to open its doors and welcome guests as quickly as possible.

Bahamians would have work, and money would be coming in for the resort to start paying its many creditors.

This is the only solution that is in everybody’s best interest.

We believe that Mr Max Gibson, an astute businessman, would see the wisdom in this.