The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Prime Minister last night doubled down on accusations that a payments provider which has failed to remit $6.4m to the Government was not licensed to collect funds on its behalf.

Hitting back at assertions by Michael Pintard, the Opposition’s leader, that he had misled the House of Assembly on the situation, Philip Davis KC reiterated that the company - who he still declined to name - was not licensed by either the Central Bank or Securities Commission to conduct the activities for which the Minnis administration hired it to perform.

“It was suggested by the member for Marco City that I misled the House because I said that a company collected monies on behalf of the Government; that’s what I said, the company, and he said that company contracted by the Government - listen to me carefully - that the company that was contracted by the Government was licensed by the Central Bank of The Bahamas,” Mr Davis said.

“The company, and I will not call the name - I have the name - that company was incorporated on January 18, 2018. That company was not licensed by the Securities Commission and Central Bank to conduct the activities for which the Government hired them. I will say no more on this subject any more, but if you want to go down that line again call the Central Bank and Securities Commission” before raising it again.

Mr Davis’ original allegations about the payments provider, made when unveiling the mid-year Budget, sparked a running battle with the Opposition leader for much of yesterday’s House of Assembly debate. Mr Pintard, indicating that the arrears owed to the Government from fees collected on its behalf was actually higher than allowed for by Mr Davis, standing at $7.2m as opposed to $6.4m, said the provider in question had previously paid over $20m it had collected.

He added that the payments provider at the centre of the controversy had been hired as part of the Government’s Digi Pay initiative, which was designed to create a cashless payments system and remove the potential for fees and taxes to go missing via fraud, wastage and other forms of corruption. Mr Pintard also asserted that the arrears owed by the provider had accumulated on the Davis administration’s watch, not that of its Minnis predecessor.

“With the commencement of the cashless system, Digi Pay, Immigration was one of the departments for consideration along with the Registrar General’s Department,” the Opposition leader said. “That company collected up until the time it discontinued remitting, it collected at least $20m that was turned over to the Government of The Bahamas.”

Mr Pintard added that the payment provider’s arrears owing to the Government dated from the period May to September 2022, when the Davis administration was in office, and he had earlier challenged it to lay in the House of Assembly documentary evidence showing any funds were due under its predecessor. 

“He sought to give the clear impression that the FNM was irresponsible with collecting funds and that the more than $7m accumulation in arrears occurred when we were in government when the exact opposite happened,” Mr Pintard told Tribune Business. “The arrears not only accumulated after the election but in 2022.”

During the House of Assembly’s morning session he had accused the Prime Minster of misleading Parliament on three aspects of the affair - whether the company in question was properly licensed, that it was the only contracted collections agency, and implying that the arrears owed to government dated from the former administration.

The Free National Movement (FNM) leader initially named the payments provider involved, only to subsequently withdraw it, while the Prime Minister would neither confirm nor deny its identity. However, their exchanges in the House of Assembly revealed it to be Omni Financial Group, which has not commented on the claims or been drawn into the political fray.

Mr Pintard, during his mid-year Budget debate contribution, charged: “The figures collected by … relative to Immigration payments made, that here’s a company, that one, that was not licensed. He [Mr Davis] 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.”

The “black ops” refers to the fact that the Prime Minister’s press team initially circulated a mid-year Budget communication that contained the company’s name, only to swiftly delete and remove that draft within minutes of issuance and subsequently issue an amended version with the identity removed.

Asserting that he was doing “the responsible thing” by withdrawing the payments provider’s name, Mr Pintard said: “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 opposing positions of Messrs Davis and Pintard on the licensing issue may be due a subsidiary of the licensed payment provider being responsible for collecting funds on the Government’s behalf, not the parent. However, Mr Pintard also denied that the payments provider was the only entity hired under the Minnis administration to collect fees and other payments on the Government’s behalf.

He said three other payment providers were ultimately contracted for the task, including Cash N’Go, whose owners include now-deputy prime minister, Chester Cooper. The others were Money Maxx and Sun Cash. “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..... All three did some degree of business with government departments. The Prime Minister sought to give the impression that there was only one company when he knew there were four companies.”

Mr Davis, in reply, said: “I never called a company’s name. They called it. I hold no brief for them. Perhaps he [Mr Pintard] could help us get our money back. I said about the company that has collected the money. I called no name. So Omni has collected the money. Tell them to give our money.”

Mr Pintard repeated his accusations that the Prime Minister had misled the House of Assembly, to which Mr Davis retorted: “I don’t know Omni. You called this company named Omni. I said that there is a company that collected the money that has no licence. Are we talking about the same company? I don’t know. If you are holding brief for them, ask 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 denied that he was holding a “brief” for the payment provider, and urged the Government to collect the monies it is owed. “Go and collect it by whatever means you need to, but do not give the impression that somebody else was derelict in their duty,” he added.