The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

TRIBUNE Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

THE $200M Rosewood Exuma developer is accusing its key opponent of “an abuse of process” through its filing of a new Supreme Court action asserting that its constitutional rights were violated during its challenge to the project’s planning approval.

Felipe MacLean, principal of Miami-based Yntegra Group, in a November 4, 2026, affidavit revealed it is urging the Supreme Court to “strike out” the latest litigation from its neighbouring Sampson Cay developer, Turtlegrass Resort & Island Club, which wants the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board to recuse itself from ruling on its planning challenge.

He and Yntegra are arguing that Turtlegrass’s October 10, 2027, motion alleging that its rights to “a fair hearing” under article 20 (8) of the Bahamian constitution were violated because the Board and its members were not “independent and impartial” during the appeal hearing, is both premature and an abuse of process given that it has other legal avenues through which to challenge an unfavourable decision.

Pointing out that the Appeal Board has yet to rule on Turtlegrass’s substantive challenge, which was heard on September 17-18, 2026, Mr MacLean said it has also made no decision on the October 8, 2026, recusal application that its Sampson Cay rival submitted directly to it. The Appeal Board is currently due to hear that application next week on November 18, although it is understood not to have replied to recent Turtlegrass correspondence.

Mr MacLean and Yntegra, meanwhile, are asserting that other legal avenues, including one provided by the Planning and Subdivision Act, exist for Turtlegrass and its principal, Bob Coughlin, to challenge the Appeal Board’s yet-to-be-rendered substantive verdict should it prove unfavourable whenever released.

“The hearing of the appeal commenced before the Board on June 30, 2026, and was concluded on September 17, 2026,” Mr MacLean alleged. “At no time during the hearing did Turtlegrass ask the Board to recuse itself…. As of the date of this affidavit, the Board has yet to determine the appeal lodged by Turtlegrass. Similarly, the Board has not yet determined the application made by Turtlegrass for its recusal.”

Noting that his chief opponent enjoys “a statutory right of appeal” to the Supreme Court over any Appeal Board decision it deems incorrect or unjust, via section 66 (1) of the Planning and Subdivision Act, Mr MacLean argued that Turtlegrass’s recourse to a constitutional motion is “an abuse of process” given that it has alternative means of redress and should be struck out.

The constitutional motion, filed by Turtlegrass’s attorneys, Callenders & Co, largely repeats allegations in the October 8 recusal application made directly to the Appeal Board that it suffered “unfair and/or biased” treatment during the hearing over its challenge to Rosewood Exuma’s preliminary site plan approval.

The neighbouring Sampson Cay developer is now seeking a Supreme Court declaration that its constitutional right to have the appeal “determined by an independent and impartial adjudicating authority, and to be given a fair hearing, have been contravened”.

It also wants an Order that the appeal be “reheard” by a newly-formed and constituted Appeal Board that features none of the members who participated in the first hearing; an injunction to stop the original Board taking any further steps to determine the substantive appeal; and that it be allowed to introduce evidence from six reports on separate aspects of Rosewood Exuma’s project.

Turtlegrass, in particular, is challenging the alleged u-turn or “volte face” performed by the Board on July 22, 2026, when it reversed a previous decision by deciding that the six reports commissioned by the Rosewood Exuma challenger could no longer be used as evidence in the appeal.

“At the June Hearing on 30 June, 2026, after contested argument, the Board permitted the claimant to adduce its expert evidence at the substantive hearing, adjourned the hearing dates then set for 6–7 July, 2026, (to allow the developers to consider whether to elicit any expert evidence in reply), and reserved the question of the weight it would give the expert reports,” Turtlegrass alleged in its motion.

“On 22 July, 2026, the purported determination was issued by the deputy chairman alone [Dr Roosevelt Whyms] in contravention of rule 16(5) of the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board rules, which requires any order or determination to be signed by the chairman and two other members. The Purported Determination, in effect, sought to reverse the Board's direction permitting expert evidence… and excluded that expert evidence.”

Turtlegrass alleged that it was not provided with reasons for this reversal, and added: “The purported determination stated that the claimant had ‘more than ample opportunity’ to put in its expert evidence, having regard to the time that had elapsed since the initial site plan approval in principle on 25 March, 2025.

“That reasoning was fundamentally flawed in that it failed to address the material differences between the proposals and their supporting documentation. The expert reports addressed matters that were central to the claimant’s case. Their purported exclusion deprived the claimant of the opportunity to present its case in a proper and fair way.”

Turtlegrass then repeated its claim that Rayshon Deleveaux, who was identified as a representative “of the Office of the Attorney General”, had “sat and retired with the [Appeal] Board” during its preliminary June 2026 hearings only to then appear as an attorney acting for the Government in the related Supreme Court case challenging Rosewood Exuma’s environmental approvals - something it alleges creates the appearance of a “conflict of interest”.

“The Board has no independently appointed legal adviser,” Turtlegrass claimed. “The only other person known to have advised the Board, and to have sat and retired with it, is Mr Deleveaux of the Attorney General’s Office.

“The transcript of the June hearing records Mr Deleveaux as attending at the commencement of the hearing in a dual role: He was introduced both as ‘attorney for the Board’ and as an attorney of the Office of the Attorney General. He sat and retired with the Board in its deliberations at the June hearing.

“Subsequent to the June hearing, the claimant identified that - at all material times - Mr Deleveaux was acting as attorney for the minister, the director of public prosecutions, and all other government respondents in the claimant's Judicial Review proceedings; proceedings directly connected with the same underlying subject-matter as the” planning appeal.