There is ad interesting but disturbing link between the death of Anna Nicole Smith’s son Daniel and the resignations of Keod Smith and Kenyatta Gibson.
Had it not been for the press, you – the Bahamian public – would have heard nothing about either the nature of Daniel’s demise or the details of the Cabinet Room slugfest. Only sheer persistence by diligent young reporters unearthed the truth about these two most unfortunate affairs. Had it been left to ‘officialdom’ – that is, the government and its paid functionaries – you would have been considered too lowly, too humble, and far too unimportant to hear about such matters.
The example set to young hoodlums over-the-hill in the handling of these incidents leaves much to be desired. It seemed to suggest that such inconveniences need only become a problem if the people find out about them. Getting caught is the real crime. If you can keep the lid on things, who cares?
That’s why last week’s call for a Freedom of Information Act is so timely. It would give legislative teeth to a process which is currently left to the whims and wiles of politicians and their officials, people who – on recent evidence – don’t have the inclination or will to live up to their responsibilities.
The ducking-and-diving evident throughout the early stages of the Daniel Smith affair, and the refusal of two MPs to be held accountable for their thuggish behaviour in the Cabinet Room, set a deplorable example for Bahamian youth.
For the message that came over strongly was: if there is any way you can dodge your responsibilities, do so. Self-preservation and keeping things quiet stand far above public honour.
There was a point when Kenyatta Gibson owned up and seemed ready to take his licks and move on. Had he
done so, he would have left his post on the gaming board with at least a modicum of public respect. Alas, unfortunately for him, he allowed himself to be diverted from that course.
What followed was a farcical cat-and-mouse affair in which PLP leaders were apparently driving all over town trying to track down Gibson and Smith with resignation letters for them to sign.
If party sources are correct, the backbench bruisers were only brought to book when it became clear there was no escape. Like a couple of recalcitrant schoolboys, they were brought before the head to he given a dressing-down.
However, even then there was little sign of genuine contrition. Sources close to party insiders told The Tribune that Smith and Gibson insisted on trade-offs in their negotiations with Prime Minister Perry Christie.
Moreover, they cited previously unpunished transgressions by government members as good reasons for their own ‘reprieves’. “Why should we suffer for a punch-up when others got away with far worse’?” was the gist of their complaint.
Regrettably, both were allowed to emerge with relatively mild punishment and their political careers intact when, in truth, they should have been thrown out by their ears.
What we now hear is that one of the two shamed MPs threatened to make uncomfortable disclosures about a Cabinet minister if he was forced out. Thus, the government was compromised and what could have been a fantastic opportunity to demonstrate firm leadership and exemplary handling of a tricky situation was lost.
Instead, we got yet another descent into devious, deceitful behaviour which errant youths will no doubt emulate when forced to face the consequences of their own wrongdoing. Nassau’s low-life will be able to point to their so-called ‘betters’ and say: “They got away with it, why shouldn’t we?”
It’s no surprise, therefore, that thinking Bahamians are now calling for legislation that would outlaw cover-ups of any kind.
Grand Bahama Human Rights Association’s demand for a Freedom of Information Act is aimed at removing the inconsistencies that thwart the public’s right to know about all things of legitimate public interest. It would jettison one of the worst of all British colonial legacies – the belief that the people have no right to know anything if the establishment says so.
Such a law would not only lay down and guarantee the people’s rights, but also punish those who seek to obstruct its objectives. Those in power, or positions of responsibility, could be challenged in the courts if they were seen to be blocking the process.
Thus, over a period of time a new culture of openness would flourish in the Bahamas, with the public itself hopefully feeling more inclined to speak out instead of being hemmed in by the possibility of victimisation.
Read part 2 of this INSIGHT article
By: John Marquis, from the INSIGHT column in the Tribune newspaper
