The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

FNM chairman Michael Pintard yesterday called on government members to be more responsible in their public pronouncements about the Baha Mar project.

Mr Pintard’s comments came after State Minister for Legal Affairs Damian Gomez questioned, in a report published by The Nassau Guardian, where Baha Mar developer Sarkis Izmirlian will get $200m to help to push the project forward.

Without disclosing details of the source of financing, lawyers for Baha Mar last week told a US Bankruptcy judge that Mr Izmirlian is willing to commit up to $200m to jump start the project.

In response, Mr Gomez said he does not know what impact the revelation will have on the ongoing negotiations and suggested that if the funding was agreed to before, the 97 per cent finished project would have been further along than it is now.

Asked to respond to Mr Gomez’ comments and elaborate on the $200m financing, Baha Mar Vice President for External Affairs Robert Sands told The Tribune: “We stand by all comments that we have made publicly about the matter and that he has made that offer.”

Nonetheless, for Mr Pintard, Mr Gomez’ comments seemed to support the notion that the government has sided with Baha Mar’s Chinese partners in their ongoing dispute, despite public expression that all sides must come to an agreement.

“The government must be especially concerned about its tone with this because it further cements the perception that the government has chosen sides in this matter,” he said.

“Again the government has not been cautious in its public statements relative to this development. If in fact their goal is to ensure the speedy opening of Baha Mar and a successful operation then all public pronouncements ought to be such that they do not prejudice the private discussions that are ongoing.

“It may be unwise for any government official to cast any aspersion, whether intentionally or unwittingly, on a developer’s commitments or expressed commitment to find additional sums of monies because, after all, the goal is to get to the finish line, which is to get to the property open. Whether or not the developer could have found those monies earlier is certainly to us, definitely not out of the realm of possibility.

“The government’s pronouncement is especially important against the backdrop of the incendiary comments made by the Prime Minister about the developer and the apparent threat of the a Foreign Affairs Minister raising the spectre of revocation of residency.

“On the heels of those kinds of comments they should be particularly careful – and that applies to the developer as well. My initial reaction to some of the comments made recently by the government is that it seems as though the government is speaking for the CCA and the lender.”