Questions on The National Investment Fund (NIF) of The Bahamas

- Halkitis on Wednesday: The NIF spent $310M
- Munroe on Thursday: The NIF don't yet exist

By Lynden R. Nairn

On June 25, 2025, Attorney General Ryan Pinder told the Senate:

“We look to have the fund constituted by the end of this month and funded in part from proceeds from the recent bond offering.”

Remember, Parliament had already passed the $300 million borrowing resolution on March 10, 2025 — some 107 days earlier.

Now fast-forward almost 15 months.

Yesterday, Minister of Finance Michael Halkitis explained:

“During the period before the Fund’s governance arrangements became fully operational, the Ministry of Finance acted on the basis that the Public Finance Management Act governed the administration and application of these public resources through the Ministry and the Treasury.”

He further acknowledged that the Government is still completing the Fund’s regulations, mandates, committee structure, financial reporting and audit processes.

So let us put the timeline together.

On June 25, 2025, the Attorney General said the NIF was expected to be constituted within five days.

Almost 15 months later, the Minister of Finance tells Parliament that essential governance arrangements are still being completed — after $310.9 million of NIF proceeds has already been spent.

Perhaps Attorney General Pinder was simply mistaken.

But if he was, when did the Government discover that the Fund would not be constituted as represented?

And, more importantly, why did the Government proceed to deploy hundreds of millions of dollars while the governance arrangements of the very Fund Parliament had authorized to receive the money were not fully operational?

Those questions deserve answers.

Source / Comment

The Governing Mechanisms of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement - Freeport, Grand Bahama Island, The Bahamas

The Freeport Arbitration — Let Us Be Clear About What Was Actually Decided

Over the past several days I have watched the national conversation about the Freeport arbitration move in every direction except the one that matters.

- Headlines.

- Political commentary.

- Institutional statements.

- Social media arguments.

Almost all of it is circling the wrong question.

The public has been encouraged to believe this was about who won.

It was not.

The arbitration between the Government of The Bahamas and the Grand Bahama Port Authority was about something far more fundamental: whether the governing mechanisms of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement were ever properly used.

And the tribunal’s answer was clear.

They were not.

⸻

Let us speak plainly.

The Government said the Port Authority owed $357 million.

The Port Authority said the Government’s actions caused $1 billion in losses.

Both numbers were placed before the tribunal.

And both numbers failed.

Not because the tribunal determined that one side was innocent and the other guilty.

But because the mechanism required by the Hawksbill Creek Agreement to determine those numbers had not been properly used.

The Agreement itself provides the process.

A review mechanism exists to determine what the Port Authority must contribute toward administrative expenses in Freeport.

That mechanism was supposed to be activated and used to determine the figures.

It was not.

And without that mechanism being used, the tribunal could not simply endorse either side’s financial claim.

That is why the numbers collapsed.

⸻

This is the central point.

The arbitration did not determine that no obligations exist.

The arbitration determined that the proper process must be followed before anyone can quantify those obligations.

That is the entire case.

And that is what many of the public discussions are missing.

⸻

Bahamians should be careful.

Do not allow political narratives or institutional messaging to distort what the tribunal actually said.

Do not allow this to be reduced to slogans.

And do not allow anyone to convince you that a complex governance dispute can be explained with a headline.

The tribunal did something far more serious than declaring a winner.

It forced both parties back into the legal architecture of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.

The message was simple:

Use the mechanism that already exists.

Follow the Agreement.

Determine the numbers properly.

⸻

The real work begins now.

If the review mechanism is finally activated and properly applied, then — and only then — will the Bahamian people know:

• what the Port Authority must contribute,

• what the Government may legitimately claim, and

• what the financial relationship within Freeport should actually be.

Until that process runs its course, all claims about who owes what remain speculation.

⸻

My earlier statement made this clear.

This arbitration was not about personalities.

It was not about politics.

And it was not about headlines.

It was about process, structure, and the rule-based governance system that underpins Freeport itself.

Bahamians deserve clarity, not confusion.

Let us deal with the law as it is — not as anyone wishes it to be.

⸻

Tuesday, 10 March 2026 — 11:20 AM (EST)

With Professional Respect Asé

CRAIG F. BUTLER ESQ.

Constitutional Theorist

Pan-African Methodology

Electronic, Disability-Accommodated Chambers Practice

Commonwealth of The Bahamas

Source / Comment