The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Staff Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

FREE National Movement leader Michael Pintard yesterday accused Prime Minister Phillip Davis of misleading Parliament last week when he said the Minnis administration hired an unlicensed company to collect immigration-related fees on behalf of the government.

As he was contributing to debate on the mid-year budget in the House of Assembly yesterday, Mr Pintard spent much of his speech lashing out at Mr Davis for misrepresenting the facts in an attempt to make the public believe that he had “uncovered yet another major scandal”.

Mr Pintard was referring to what the prime minister had said last week about an unnamed payment provider that he accused of collecting $6.4m on behalf of the government in immigration fees and taxes and keeping it.

 Mr Davis also claimed the company was not licensed to collect revenue or engage in the provision of financial services – something that was heavily refuted by Mr Pintard yesterday.

 While the Prime Minister did not name the company last week, Mr Pintard called the company’s name in Parliament yesterday; however, those remarks were later withdrawn.

 “So, one of the things he (the prime minister) talked about was the figures collected by … relative to immigration payments made that here’s a company, that one, that was not licensed,” the Marco City MP told the House of Assembly.

“He referenced a company that he said was not licensed and I want to put on the record that the company was licensed by the Central Bank, contrary to the assertion by the Prime Minister who through their black ops had already put out the name.

 “So, what they did Mr Deputy is they sought to mislead the country when they (said) that the FNM administration had a company collecting money that was not licensed to do so which is untrue. The company was licensed by the Central Bank.”

 The FNM leader also claimed Mr Davis misled the House when he said the company was the only payment provider hired by the FNM government.

 “The facts are there are at least three other service providers and I could go through the names of the additional service providers,” added Mr Pintard.

 “There were at least three other service providers that are well known within the Commonwealth of The Bahamas, but the Prime Minister refused to indicate who those service providers were and so that’s the second point that he misled the House on and misled the country on.

 He said Mr Davis also “sought to give the impression that the $7.2m or so that accumulated as arrears occurred under the former administration”.

 He said those arrears were actually accumulated under the Davis administration in 2022 and called on government MPs to lay in Parliament “the record to show the arrears accumulated in 2021 prior to the general election to verify the assertion made by the member for Cat Island, Rum Cay and San Salvador”.

 As Mr Pintard was making his case, Mr Davis arrived in the House of Assembly and minutes later rose on a point of order and said he stood by his earlier comments.

 “I never called any company name. I intentionally didn’t call no names. He called it. I hold no brief for them. Perhaps he can help us get our money back,” the Prime Minister added.

 “But I stand on what I said about the company that’s collected the money.”

 But Mr Pintard did not let up and again took aim at Mr Davis for misleading Parliament and the country “in three material areas”.

 Mr Davis, responding, accused the opposition leader of trying to cause mischief and said he knew nothing about the company named by Mr Pintard and questioned whether the two were talking about the same entity.

 “You called this company,” the Prime Minister pointed out.

 “I said that there’s a company that collected the money (that) had no licence. Are we talking about the same company? I don’t know. That’s the first thing you have to ask yourself. So, are we talking about the same company, so if you are holding brief for them, ask them which company is collecting the money?

 “And another thing he said is that I gave some impression as to why these funds were being held otherwise and that I gave some impression about why. I said why. They said why they ain’t pay the money over … and I said why if you were listening.

 “They said they was keeping it to expand their business. That’s what I said they said.”

 Mr Pintard said if the company in question was indeed holding government money, then the Davis administration had an obligation to collect that money.

 “Go and collect it by whatever means you need to, but do not give the impression that somebody else was derelict in their duty. Your administration did not collect the arrears. That’s one. Two, there were more than one company and thirdly, they were licenced so stop drip feeding wrong information to the public,” Mr Pintard continued.