The Tribune

BY NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE OPPOSITION’S leader yesterday accused the Government of “seeking to obstruct a transparent probe” into the National Investment Fund’s (NIF) governance, and handling of up to $700m in public monies, amid warnings it could cause an “imbroglio”.

Michael Pintard told Tribune Business there were multiple “early signs of the Government reneging” on its previous promises of full co-operation with the Public Accounts Committee (PAC), Parliament’s spending watchdog, after it was yesterday revealed that the Attorney General will resort to Supreme Court action to stop it exceeding its powers.

The warning was delivered in the House of Assembly by Kingsley Smith, the West Grand Bahama MP and one of two minority Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) members on the Committee, who voiced fears any such move by Wayne Munroe KC could result in an embarrassing situation where a House of Assembly committee finds itself subject to an adverse court decision in an action brought by the Government.

He explained that the snarl-up, which threatens to ensnare all three branches of government, stems from the three Opposition members - who form the majority of the PAC - on Tuesday voting in favour of issuing a summons to Ryan Pinder KC, the former attorney general, to appear before the Committee and answer questions on the legal advice provided to the Government on establishing accounts in the NIF’s name at the Central Bank.

Michael Halkitis, minister of finance, has previously confirmed nearly $311m of the Bahamian people’s money was spent through these accounts even though the National Investment Fund’s governance and management structures, as required by law, had not been set-up. And, based on information already made public, as much as $965m could have been deposited into the account facilities established in the Fund’s name.

Mr Pinder, who served in the first Davis administration, would have been Attorney General when his Office provided the legal advice relied on by the Government to establish the Fund. However, even though he is no longer a government minister, his successor, Mr Munroe, is arguing that the Cabinet Oath of confidentiality, as well as attorney-client legal privilege, prevent Mr Pinder from testifying before the PAC on the Fund-related advice given to government.

Mr Smith said that, based on the nature of the questions the Committee wishes to ask Mr Pinder, the current attorney general informed the PAC on November 2, 2026, that it would result in both Mr Pinder breaching his oath and legal privilege, which prevents disclosure of confidential communications between an attorney and their client.

And, besides these restrictions, the West Grand Bahama MP said the attorney general believes the PAC is acting unlawfully, and exceeding its powers, in issuing the summons to Mr Pinder. Mr Smith cited section 14 (1) of the Powers and Privileges (Senate and House of Assembly) Act, which he said requires the full Parliament to approve a resolution in favour of issuing a summons such as the one aimed at Mr Pinder.

“It is clear that the PAC has not sought or received express authority from the House of Assembly to issue a summons to Ryan Pinder KC and is acting ultra vires its powers,” Mr Smith told the House of Assembly yesterday.

“I have spoken with Senator Wayne Munroe KC, who indicates that should the PAC continue to purport to act ultra vires he may well have to initiate action before the Supreme Court to obtain the appropriate declaration and orders.

“Madam Speaker, if permitted to continue to act ultra vires, the PAC’s action would result in a potential imbroglio where a House of Assembly committee is the subject of adverse declarations and sanctions by the judiciary in an action bought by the executive involving a now-private citizen [Mr Pinder].” Mr Smith said the law was also clear that a House committee cannot summons a Senator, as Mr Pinder was, to appear before it.

Patrica Deveaux, the House of Assembly speaker, said she would take legal advice on the issues raised and “revert back in writing” to MPs on the way forward, and the implications for the National Investment Fund investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, “before the next sitting” of Parliament.

But Mr Pintard, who chairs the Committee, told Tribune Business yesterday that the issues raised by Mr Smith, and the legal action warning by Mr Munroe, form part of a pattern of obstruction designed to hinder the probe into the National Investment Fund’s governance and how the Bahamian people’s money was spent.

He argued that delay tactics already employed were Mr Munroe’s request for the Committee to “stand down” its probe until the Auditor General completed its own investigation into the Fund, which was refused, plus the failure of both the Ministry of Finance and Public Treasury - the two entities most responsible for overseeing the NIF accounts - to supply documents requested by the PAC.

Mr Pintard also challenged Mr Munroe’s assertions that the questions to, and information sought from, Mr Pinder were governed by attorney-client legal privilege. He said the PAC’s questions were more of a “technical nature” around who from the Attorney General’s Office led the initiative to provide the National Investment Fund advice, and who they liaised with at the Ministry of Finance.

The Opposition leader, noting Mr Halkitis’ statements that the Ministry of Finance’s actions relating to the Fund were governed by the Public Finance Management Act and relevant laws, plus advice from the Attorney General’s Office, also questioned how this could be protected by attorney-client privilege when all the PAC is seeking is confirmation of the legal authority that allowed the Government to act as it did.

“We believe that it’s in the interests of the Bahamian people to know the facts surrounding the $700m and to look closer at the Government’s decisions on the funds deposited with the Central Bank accounts, which we now know are not the National Investment Fund’s accounts, because the Fund has never been set up,” Mr Pintard told this newspaper.

“We saw early signs of the Government reneging or going back on their commitment of being transparent and co-operative. One of the earlier signs was, once the Auditor General got involved with the matter, the Attorney General [Mr Munroe] asked for us to stand down in our investigation and wait for the Auditor General, which had recently established their investigation, to finish their report.

“We respectfully declined to do so because we know we have standing, and Parliament has an obligation to investigate how its funds are being spent through the Public Accounts Committee.” And Mr Pintard said that although the Ministry of Finance, through the office of Simon Wilson, the financial secretary, and the Public Treasury, have testified before the PAC, they “have failed to provide the many documents they are obliged to produce” so far.

“These are two events, steps taken, in our view to not be fully co-operative and transparent with the PAC,” Mr Pintard said. “One is not producing the requested documents, and the other is to stand down and wait for the Auditor General.” He added that the Committee needs to speak with Mr Pinder because he was “in the chair” when accounts were being set up in the Fund’s name, transactions occurred and the legal advice was given.

Contradicting Mr Munroe’s position, as stated by Mr Smith, that the questions to Mr Pinder would breach attorney-client confidentiality, the Opposition leader said: “This is the latest attempt to not co-operate, operate in a manner that is not transparent or co-operate as they have committed to do so. Even the west Grand Bahama MP acknowledged it could be useful to hear from him, but he was not prepared to support us summonsing the former attorney general.”

Mr Pintard backed Michela Barnett-Ellis, the Killarney MP and fellow Opposition PAC member, asserting that both the House of Assembly’s in-house counsel and clerk, Arnold Forbes, had advised that the summons could be issued - again contradicting the position taken by Mr Smith and Mr Munroe. Mrs Barnett-Ellis, too, denied that the PAC’s questions will breach Mr Pinder’s legal privilege.

“We feel we were on good grounds to call for issuing the summons,” Mr Pintard added. “We want to know why is there deep concern to get the information that the Government committed to provide.”

Referring to Mr Halkitis’s confirmation that the Government had leaned heavily on legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office in relation to the National Investment Fund, Mr Pintard added: “If this is what they relied on at that time to make decisions, how could it be privileged when they are Acts already passed by Parliament?

“We are speaking on behalf of thousands of Bahamians asking where the money has gone, where it has come from. We would like to know what is the legal authority, what laws are you relying on to move funds and spend funds as you have apparently done. It’s a very straightforward set of facts they should speak to. Why are they afraid to tell the public which laws they relied on?”

Total public and taxpayer money placed into the Fund could be as high as $965m. Besides the $700m referred to by Mr Halkitis, the Davis administration had also previously placed the $265.5m net proceeds from the $1.067bn bond into the Fund during the prior fiscal period.

Tribune Business revelations that most of that $265.5m had been removed from the Fund, leaving just a balance of $200,000 at end-March 2026, sparked the increased scrutiny that ultimately led to Mr Rolle’s disclosures about the Board not being convened, and the governance and operational consequences of this.

Mr Pintard, in a November 4, 2026, letter to Mr Halkitis reminded him of his September 16, 2026, public commitment to “fully co-operate” with the Public Accounts Committee, and called upon him to do so by “waiving any legal professional privilege or applicable convention of confidentiality” covering Fund-related advice received from the Attorney General’s Office.

“We disagree with the position advanced and consider the advice given to Mr Pinder to be unreasonable,” the Opposition leader asserted. 

”We do not believe that privilege should be used to prevent Parliament from examining the legal basis on which substantial sums of public money were transferred and expended, particularly where the Government has itself relied on that advice in its explanation to Parliament.

“The fact that public funds may have been spent on roads, airports, government buildings or other projects does not remove the obligation to establish that those funds were transferred and expended in accordance with the law.”

Mr Pintard added: “Accordingly, the Committee formally requests that the Government waive any legal professional privilege or applicable convention of confidentiality attaching to the advice provided by the Office of the Attorney General concerning the National Investment Fund, to the extent necessary to permit both the current and former attorneys general to give full and frank evidence before the Committee.

“No Government should expect Parliament or the Bahamian people to accept, without examination, that spending hundreds of millions of dollars was lawful simply because the Government says it received legal advice. We are not prejudging the outcome of the investigation. We are asking for the information necessary to establish the facts.

“I therefore ask that you confirm in writing that the Government will waive the applicable privilege or convention to permit the evidence sought by the Committee. Should the Government decline this request, we ask that the reasons for that decision be provided in writing,” the Marco City MP added.

“The Bahamian people are entitled to know the particulars of these transactions, the authority under which they were undertaken and the reasoning behind the decisions made by the Ministry of Finance.”