The Tribune

“THIS is a lot deeper than y’all realise,” Audley Hanna told our reporter on Thursday when vowing to rebuild at his own expense the burned out Bahamas Agriculture and Marine Science Institute’s dormitories for which he was the contractor.

Although we feel sorry for Mr Hanna, whose Pardigm Construction, was given the contract for the Andros agricultural development, we cannot allow to go unchallenged the red herring that he is now trying to draw across the scene to change the focus of the conversation.

In speaking with our reporter, Mr Hanna said he wanted to point out that the person accused of the arson attack was a close relative of Opposition Leader Dr Hubert Minnis. And so? What’s his point? Did Dr Minnis light the match? If not, then where does he fit into the jig-saw puzzle? Is Mr Hanna responsible for the actions of all of his relatives? If not, then why does Dr Minnis’ name enter this conversation — of course, the object is just to deflect Bahamians’ attention from the real problems — and there are many.

We were wondering when this red herring was going to be dragged across the stage. They tried to get The Tribune to do their dirty work by an unsigned letter sent to us for publication last month. After being a part of this political scene for so many years, we know the schemers and scandal mongers and so we can almost guess what desk our anonymous letter came from. Knowing the object of the exercise, we refused to publish it.

In that letter not only was the public to be informed of the relationship — which we understand is distant — of Dr Minnis to the accused arsonist – but that the FNM was jealous of BAMSI and wanted to see its demise. Got the point? Then if so, drop it, and let’s get on to the serious business that for the past 48 years has corrupted the moral fabric of this country. BAMSI is a good place to begin — it’s got many of the problems all wrapped up into one.

In expressing his disgust at the carelessness of BEC staff, which was at the root of the BEC fire this week, which has not only inconvenienced consumers, but has cost the country millions, BEC chairman Leslie Miller, angrily commented that no one wanted to accept responsibility. “It’s always a buddy, buddy system!” he complained.

Yes, Mr Miller, and that’s what one will find throughout the government system, including BAMSI.

During the debate in the House, Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis in answer to former minister of works Neko Grant commented that “bad habits, bad practices they die hard”.

Yes they do die hard — and so far many of them are refusing to die, they are only becoming more entrenched.

Mr Davis said that while his administration has historically been known to “give those in need a hand up” there could be no plausible explanation for what happened in this case.

Forty-one years ago in a lengthy interview with The Miami Herald, former prime minister Lynden Pindling uttered the same sentiments.

Said Sir Lynden:

“So if two bids came in (on a government job or project) of more or less comparable size, they didn’t necessarily have to be equal, and the one was from a PLP who hadn’t had the opportunity before, he would have gotten that opportunity. There ain’t no doubt about that. He would have gotten that opportunity.”

Having been given the opportunity to narrow the economic gap, one would have thought that qualified persons would have been able to go to tender on their own merits after 41 years and not have to depend on the buddy, buddy system to win a contract.

Mr Davis said he could find no plausible explanation for what happened in Mr Hanna’s case. He was referring to the fact — despite what he had told the House, and Mr Hanna had told the press – that the $2.6m structure destroyed by fire – had never had all-risk insurance coverage. Mr Davis said that this oversight was due to an “administrative error”. In other words despite the absence of the insurance certificate, Mr Hanna was paid the mobilisation fee to start construction. Apparently, this contract went through many stages of payment before money should have been issued at any stage without insurance. But at no stage did anyone, according to Mr Davis, pick up that the most important document was missing.

If Mr Davis can’t understand why, we have no difficulty in doing so. There is a certain laxness in the buddy-buddy system, very few, if any of the rules are ever followed, even Mr Davis was slow in picking up that there was something wrong, which led him to mislead the House. They all assumed too much – they were all ready to let their buddy pass. And this “buddy-buddy” assumption misled all of them.

It was two months after the January 15 fire that the public was to learn that there never was any insurance and that their money had gone up in flames.

Mr Davis was so confident in his belief that there was insurance that he stuck to his story in the House of Assembly that although insurance had existed, the contractor, having overrun his time on the contract, had failed to renew it. So the contractor was wholly to blame. It was only Opposition leader Hubert Minnis’ statement that the insurance company named by Mr Hanna did not exist that alarm bells started to ring and officials started to squirm. Mr Davis sent for the files on March 2 to do his own research. But by then he had already misled the House.

“To mislead parliament,” says Wikipedia, “is to present false information to parliament knowingly, a very serious charge in Westminster-style parliamentary assemblies. Government ministers that are found to have misled parliament will generally lose their ministerial portfolio. By convention, a minister found to have misled parliament is expected to resign or face being sacked.“

The question is did Mr Davis “knowingly” mislead parliament, or, relying on the buddy-buddy system, did he carelessly accept what he was told? A man of Mr Davis’ legal stature we would presume should be ashamed to admit to the latter, although that is what we believe happened.

“But for the act of an arsonist…the issue of this insurance would never have arisen,” Mr Davis commented.

That is true. But it has now arisen. It is time for an investigation, because the management of this project — from beginning to end — needs close scrutiny. At every stage of its development —from not including the College of the Bahamas in its plans — questions have been asked, but not answered.

At one time, all tenders were put out to the general public. But ever since Sir Lynden’s “hand up” policy in 1974 the tender system, as we knew it in the “old days”, does not exist.

We are told that “public” tender today, is tender by invitation — in other words it does not go out to the general public, and so qualified firms no longer even get a chance to bid.

Yes, Mr Davis, every misfortune in the long run must have some benefits. If it were not for the fire, these undesirable practices would have escaped public exposure. Maybe this is the only good that will come from this fire.

It is now up to the public to demand an investigation and a higher standard of accountability from its government.