If many were stunned by Prime Minister Perry Christie’s back flips and somersaults on the gambling referendum, his mega flip-flop on the oil referendum is an even more spectacular display of stunning arrogance and contempt for the Bahamian people.
The Tribune reported last May: “PLP Leader Perry Christie promised the Bahamian people at a rally on Monday night that if successful at the polls, his party would put the question of oil drilling to a referendum.
“Bahamians, we aren’t the FNM,’ he said. ‘We actually care about what you want. And there will not be oil drilling in The Bahamas unless you want it – we are on the record in favor of a national referendum.”
In damage control mode, then-Opposition Leader Christie promised a referendum after it was disclosed that he was a paid consultant to Bahamas Petroleum Company (BPC).
Note Christie’s claim of care and consideration for the concerns of Bahamians: “We actually care about what you want.”
A few weeks later, after the PLP won office, The Tribune reported: “In keeping with Prime Minister Perry Christie’s announcement to put oil drilling to a national referendum, Minister of Environment and Housing Kenred Dorsett said the Bahamian people will decide if the country moves forward with oil and gas exploration.
“It is still a matter to be addressed by the Cabinet,’ Mr. Dorsett said, ‘but I think that the prime minister was very clear on the path that this administration will take in relation to oil exploration in The Bahamas.
“There is a need, obviously, for there to not only be assessments but more importantly for the matter to be put to the people of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas to determine how it is that we are going to advance.”
Very clear
Remember Dorsett’s words: “… But I think that the prime minister was very clear on the path that this administration will take in relation to oil exploration in The Bahamas.”
Then in September 2012, just four months later, The Tribune reported: “The promised referendum on oil drilling is likely to be held sometime next year, Prime Minister Perry Christie said yesterday.
Speaking outside Cabinet yesterday, Mr. Christie said the government hopes to tackle the issue in 2013, but only if certain other factors fall into place.
“We are continuing to talk to those people who are applicants,” he said, “but as I have indicated before, oil drilling will only take place if the Bahamian people approve it through a referendum.
“It will happen next year some time, and if in fact we are ready, as I anticipate to be with the constitutional review at the end of March. By then (the oil drilling issue) will have the developments that will enable us to look at the question of a referendum.”
Then came the mega flip-flop. Less than a year in office, the Christie administration announced a deferral of a referendum on oil drilling. So much for the prime minister’s word and that of his government.
As a reminder, between 2002 and 2007 when Christie was prime minister, the PLP government issued certain licenses to BPC. Out of office, Christie became a consultant to BPC. Now back in office, his government has issued an exploration license to BPC, while delaying its promise to hold a referendum on oil drilling.
Christie did not even have sufficient respect for the Bahamian people to announce the deferral himself. Instead, he left it up to Dorsett to put out a perfunctory, unconvincing and poorly crafted statement that was a slap in the face to Bahamians.
The deferral of a promise on an issue of such magnitude and consequence deserved a thorough communication to Parliament by the prime minister on behalf of his government.
Curiously and perplexingly, the country was not even afforded a thorough statement by the Cabinet Office or the Office of the Prime Minister. Recall that it was Christie who made most of the statements on the gambling referendum, including its postponement.
Brazen conflict
Why is the now usually talkative prime minister mysteriously silent on the deferral of a referendum on oil exploration? Which brings us to Christie’s brazen and blatant conflict of interest as glaring as the noonday sun on the hottest day of the year under a cloudless sky.
One wonders sometimes whether we live in an Alice in Wonderland democracy in which words and terms of art of democratic governance mean one thing in The Bahamas and another elsewhere.
There should be no question of the prime minister’s conflict of interest in relation to the Bahamas Petroleum Company. It is Christie himself who described the conflict, having served the interests of BPC, and then being elected to serve the interests of the Bahamian people.
During last year’s general election, The Nassau Guardian reported Christie as saying of his work on behalf of BPC: “I consult on work the firm (Davis & Co.) deems I am qualified by the office I’ve had, with the knowledge that I have in terms of government.”
In various jurisdictions, lobbyists provide clients with the knowledge they have in terms of government. Christie further described his consultancy: “If there is an issue they need advice on, whether or not they need someone to speak to the issue of environmental impact [studies], the issue of whether or not in my judgment a matter is worthy for the government to approve, whether or not an application is ready, whether or not they should employ and who go on the board of directors, whatever views they ask of the firm regards it as necessary, they would consult me on it. Those are the services I provide.”
By his own admission, Christie was a general consultant to a corporation he dealt with when he was previously prime minister, a corporation wanting to drill for oil in The Bahamas while he was in Parliament, while he held the position of leader of the opposition, and while he fully expected to again become prime minister.
Questions
This is a conflict of interest for which politicians in many democracies would at least be severely criticized amidst media investigations and ethics inquiries with questions such as: When did Christie become a consultant to BPC? How much was he paid? How often did they consult with him? Why does Christie refuse to answer these questions?
Again, as noted last week: Essentially, Christie advised his clients on how to go about achieving their ultimate objective – which is to drill for oil in The Bahamas. And it was not just legal advice, it was advice on environmental issues, preparation for government approval, who to employ, who to put on the board of directors, and a catchall “whatever views they ask of the firm”.
Christie’s clients were not some ordinary citizens requiring legal counsel who may have had sometime in the future a matter before the government of The Bahamas. These were a corporation whose sole purpose for being in the country is to drill for oil.
Last May, then-Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham queried: “Was he (Christie) hired for his legal expertise or because he was a potential prime minister? Is it a mere coincidence that a foreign oil company decided to hire as consultants and pay handsomely, the two most senior leaders of the official opposition (Christie and now Deputy Prime Minister Philip Davis), and potentially two senior leaders of the executive branch in the country in which they are seeking to drill for oil?”
In essence, how likely is it that BPC would have hired him as a consultant had he not previously been prime minister, were he not leader of the opposition, with the potential of becoming prime minister again?
The opposition, the media, civil society and others must relentlessly and aggressively press this prime minister and his government on the issues of conflict of interest, transparency and accountability relative of oil exploration.
Nothing less is at stake than the future well-being of our commonwealth of Eden-like beauty and the integrity of our democracy. When it comes to the interests of foreigners and Bahamians on the question of oil exploration, the Bahamian people cannot trust this prime minister and his administration to put their interests first.
By: Simon
Author of the Front Porch column in the Nassau Guardian
and columnist on bahamapundit.com
