The Tribune

OH where, oh where has our sovereignty gone, oh, where, oh where can it be?

Answer: It’s certainly not in Delaware, USA. The last we heard of it, it had taken wings and flown off to Beijing.

When developer Sarkis Izmerlian filed for bankruptcy protection under chapter 11 in Delaware’s Bankruptcy Court – because no such protection was available in the Bahamas— he was told that the attorney general was “challenging Baha Mar’s application to the Supreme Court of the Bahamas to recognise and accept the jurisdiction of the Delaware court in the Bahamas.”

“This is not just a matter of national sovereignty,” Mr Christie told Bahamians in a national address. “There should be a Bahamian solution to this Bahamian issue and that majority of the key parties in this matter recognise and support that position.”

The Delaware court would have given protection not only to the $3.5bn resort, but to its investors, creditors, and employees, while the company recouped, completed the resort and opened its doors for business.

Bahamians were later told that as Baha Mar was located on Bahamian soil, this was a Bahamian matter and as such should be settled in the Bahamas. Delaware, USA, is foreign and its bankruptcy court — although intending to work with our court — would threaten our sovereignty. However, the same reasoning does not seem to apply to Beijing — we are now dealing with a foreign government, not an individual investor. In view of this it would seem that our government has jetted to Beijing, where logic tells us our sovereignty must now reside. However, the last time we looked Baha Mar was still on Bahamian soil.

Please, let’s stop playing games. Take the masks off, Bahamians are not stupid. They know exactly what the game plan is — they have known it from the beginning.

Six days ago we asked: “Is it really sovereignty, or is it to be rid of Izmirlian?”

We thought we had the answer, but yesterday, Mr Izmirlian threw Mr Christie and his government a life line. Whether or not he takes it will prove which side he is really on — he says he is arguing for the best deal for The Bahamas.

If Mr Christie supports Mr Izmirlian’s plan for completion, it will prove all doubting Thomases wrong. Mr Izmirlian, now wants to dismiss China Construction Co, which brought this project to a close and created this tragedy for Bahamians. He wants to hire Bahamian contractors to finish the job. Mr Christie says that he and his government are fighting for what’s best for the Bahamas. The izmirlians are willing to work with EXIM Bank and complete the job with Bahamian contractors. If our government is truly on the side of Bahamians they will not only welcome, but embrace this final solution as the best for our country.

Bahamians also want to know, not only whether taxpayers’ money is underwriting these trips to and from Beijing, but they are also interested in the future plans for Bay Street.

• • • •

ALTHOUGH Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell is not a part of the negotiating team for the restart of the Baha Mar development, it would be against his nature not to inject himself into the scrum. And so in he went, head first, with what to the average reader appeared to be a veiled threat to Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian. He reminded Mr Izmirlian that as a permanent resident of this country he had to mind his p’s and q’s when addressing the government. He told him how fortunate he was not to have been under the Immigration ministers of the Pindling era when he filed for bankruptcy protection in Delaware. In those days and under those ministers, said Mr Mitchell, Mr Izmirlian “would not have lasted the next day within the borders of The Bahamas”.

However, added Mr Mitchell: “These are, of course, different times, kindlier, gentler days.”

These words recall the days in 2002 when Mr Christie, asking Bahamians to give his party a chance to govern the Bahamas, promised that he would introduce a “new” PLP. Few Bahamians in 2002 had the stomach for a return to the dictatorial Pindling era.

Mr Mitchell’s comment tempted us to compare the treatment of Fort Charlotte MP Dr Andre Rollins, who, resigned rather than be silenced by his party, and the uproar created in 1970 when Education Minister the late Sir Cecil Wallace-Whitfield, without warning, “cut bait” and jumped the Pindling ship. He too refused to be silenced.

The matter of how these two situations were handled to silence these two fiery men stands in sharp contrast.

We all recall last month’s uproar in the House of Assembly when every attempt possible was made to cut off debate to prevent Dr Rollins speaking his mind. Everyone believed that what was on his mind would embarrass the party.

Claiming that he had missed his slot in the debating line-up, every move was made to silence him. To deny Dr Rollins the floor, the Budget debate was closed prematurely without the traditional wrap up and summation by the Prime Minister. National Security Minister Dr Bernard Nottage also failed to give an accounting of his Ministry, as did Works Minister Philip “Brave” Davis. It was Mr Davis who had moved to close the debate early, claiming that he had never intended to speak. However, it must have slipped his mind that earlier in the evening he had given a copy of his intended speech to the media. So, contrary to what he had said, at some point he had planned to speak.

However, despite their exhortations – and Mr Christie declaring that he would not let the government be held “hostage“ by Dr Rollins – they failed to convince Speaker Dr Kendal Major. Dr Major decided to take a recess to consult his conscience. Twenty minutes later, he returned to the chamber, and announced that every member had a right to speak in debate. Up stood Dr Rollins.

Although, when he stood to give his beloved party a piece of his mind, by the time he sat down he had made the decision that it was no longer a “beloved party”, nor was it his.

Explaining that when he rose to speak he had no intention of resigning from the party, he concluded that he “would be a fool” to call himself a PLP after the “way I was treated in here tonight”.

Just a week earlier, Marco City MP Greg Moss also resigned from the party. He complained of leadership issues at both the party and executive level.

Times had changed in trying to silence unruly party members. In 1970, the revolt against Pindling was even more boisterous. The attempt to control that revolt, culminated in a goon squad attack at a peaceful meeting being held by Mr Whitfield in Lewis Yard, Grand Bahama.

Holding a hand to a gash on his head, after being hit by a chair, Mr Whitfield said: “They have simply and eloquently pressed home the point we have been trying to make — more strongly than any words that we could have spoken.” Another leading PLP member told our reporter: “Now you‘ve got your story. This is the end. Free speech is no more. The country is destroyed.”

This is how the PLP handled outspoken party members in those days. This is probably the “then” and “now” to which Mr Mitchell referred.