By NEIL HARTNELL
Tribune Business Editor
nhartnell@tribunemedia.net
PARLIAMENT’S spending watchdog will tomorrow interview the present and immediate past Attorney General over the National Investment Fund (NIF) as it waits for proof $700m was deposited in its accounts.
Michael Pintard, the Free National Movement (FNM) leader, told Tribune Business that the Opposition-controlled Public Accounts Committee (PAC) is hoping to meet with both Wayne Munroe KC, the current attorney general, as well as his predecessor, Ryan Pinder KC, as he hailed the “tremendous progress” made in investigating the NIF controversy. He explained that the Committee, the only one controlled by the Opposition, will probe the legal advice given to the Government that seemingly justified it opening an account in the name “National Investment Fund” even though the latter’s governing Act, passed by the first Davis administration itself in 2022, stipulates that such facilities can only be established by the Fund’s Board.
That advice will have come from the Attorney General’s Office when it was headed by Mr Pinder, who since leaving the Cabinet and ministerial office has set up his own law firm, Pinder Commercial Chambers, described as a “high-end boutique commercial” practice. Mr Pintard told this newspaper that, among other issues, he wanted to identify who had provided the legal advice over the Fund.
And he added that the Public Accounts Committee also wants to understand “the legal authority” that government officials in the Ministry of Finance and Treasury relied upon in making decisions relating to the monies placed with the National Investment Fund, including the near-$311m said to have been spent on improving airports, roads, water infrastructure and court complexes.
Mr Pintard spoke after yesterday issuing a statement asserting that the Public Accounts Committee has yet to see a paper trail of documents that can “account” for, or confirm, that almost $700m in net government borrowings were deposited with the National Investment Fund as disclosed by Michael Halkitis, minister of finance, during the 2025-2026 Budget communication at end-May.
Disclosing that the Committee has yet to be provided with National Investment Fund documents requested from the Ministry of Finance and Public Treasury, the Opposition leader said it has seen “one correspondence” suggesting that the Fund’s Board - appointed in August 2025 - knew nothing of the $311m outlay and other transactions occurring on their watch.
He revealed that, apart from John Rolle, the Central Bank governor, the Fund’s Board is supposed to comprise Sean Longley, founder and group chief executive of Leno Bahamas, as chairman, plus Dianne Bowe-Pindling; Brian Jones, another financial services executive; and Andre Rahming. However, they were never formally convened as a group to form the Board.
Mr Pintard yesterday told Tribune Business that the Committee has already met with Simon Wilson, the Ministry of Finance’s financial secretary; Barbara Zonicle, the treasurer; Mr Rollle as Central Bank governor; and Danya Wallace, director of legal affairs in the Attorney General’s Office. He singled out the latter duo, in particular, for providing documents and “clear and helpful testimony”.
“We should be interviewing the present and former Attorney Generals this coming Thursday if all goes well,” the FNM leader then revealed. “There are a number of critical matters raised by them, these very senior government officials.
“Therefore, the present and former Attorney General will be able to fill in some of the gaps that exist and answer some of the questions that have arisen by earlier testimony from their colleagues who have testified under oath.”
Asked what the Committee will be seeking to obtain from both Mr Pinder and Mr Munroe, Mr Pintard replied: “Without question what was the legal authority that the persons who acted in the management of the funds relied upon when they made the critical decisions they made, and who provided the advice?”
Mr Halkitis previously rejected Opposition charges, and concerns from others, by reiterating the Government had stayed within “the exercise of the law” in relation to the Fund and how its monies and other assets have been managed over the past year-and-a-half.
While acknowledging the governance deficiencies, the minister signalled that the Government had acted in accordance with legal advice from the Attorney General’s Office that - until the National Investment Funds Act 2022 becomes fully activated - the Fund is governed by the Public Finance Management Act, and thus comes under the oversight and control of the Ministry of Finance and Public Treasury.
Mr Pintard yesterday said the documents the Committee has requested, but is yet to receive, from the Ministry of Finance and Public Treasury are important to its inquiries into how the National Investment Fund - the equivalent of a sovereign wealth owned by the Bahamian people - have been managed, invested and maintained for the benefit of taxpayers.
Amid the Fund’s governance deficiencies, the Opposition leader demanded that the Government explain why its Board’s appointments were never publicly disclosed and why the Board itself was not included in the recent list of public corporation Boards and committees unveiled by the second Davis administration.
“Why was the Board never called together even after it was appointed a year ago?” Mr Pintard asked. “Money was apparently being allocated and transactions were taking place in the name of the National Investment to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. Government statements and reports referred to activity under the Fund.
“Yet the evidence received so far indicates that the legally-appointed Board was not involved. Indeed, one piece of correspondence received by the PAC indicates that the Board members did not even know that these activities were taking place in the Fund’s name. That is a serious matter.”
Mr Pintard said that while Mr Wilson and Ms Zonicle had “shared a lot of information” when they appeared before the Committee “we still do not have the full documentary record needed to understand what happened”.
“Nor do we have answers to key questions regarding the National Investment Fund,” he added. “We also need the Ministry of Finance to point to the specific legal authority that allowed it to carry out transactions in the name of the National Investment Fund without the involvement of its Board.
“These are not minor technical details. They go directly to who controlled the money, who approved the transactions and what lawful authority they relied upon.”
The Opposition leader also asserted that the Committee has “yet” to receive “the transaction details needed to account for”, or prove and confirm, that the $700m net government borrowing proceeds referred to by Mr Halkitis were actually deposited into the National Investment Fund.
“We do not have a complete explanation of where the funds went, how they moved, what accounts were used or what transactions were carried out,” Mr Pintard said. “The Bahamian people deserve a clear accounting of that money….
“Indeed, the testimony and documents received so far suggest that the account was created and operated under a different arrangement and under the sole control of the Ministry of Finance and the Treasury. Public officials have not yet clearly explained the legal basis for creating and operating that account.”
The NIF Act stipulates that it is the Board’s responsibility alone to “open and maintain” the Fund’s bank and investment accounts, as well as enter into agreements with financial institutions to act as custodian of its assets. Given that the Board has never been convened, the Opposition and others are questioning how a bank account could have been opened in the Fund’s name and monies transferred/invested from it.
Mr Halkitis previously confirmed that the net $265.5m proceeds remaining from the Government’s $1.067bn foreign currency international bond issue, which took place in the 2025 first half, were deposited into an account at the Central Bank in the name of “the National Investment Fund”.
However, given that the NIF Act states only the Board can open such an account, and it has not been convened, the Opposition is arguing that this facility was under the Fund’s control in name only. As a result, Mr Pintard and his party are arguing that the Government has been using this account for so-called “off-the-books capital expenditure”.
The FNM publicly, and other observers privately, have voiced concern that the Government has used the Fund’s Central Bank account as, in effect, a second ‘Consolidated Fund’.
By treating its spending as investments, and the borrowing proceeds injected into the Fund as “equity”, they argue that the Government was able to prime the pre-election spending pump and keep the $311m outlay from impacting its deficit and blowing the revised $32m Budget surplus projection for 2025-2026.
This would also enable the Government to avoid missing the 2025-2026 surplus target by more than 0.5 percent of GDP, which would force the Davis administration to submit a corrective action plan to Parliament. However, it could also disguise debt liabilities that Bahamian taxpayers may be required to repay in future years.
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.
Asked yesterday whether an “off-the-books” spending conclusion is where he and the Committee are heading, Mr Pintard said: “We’re going to let the public decide on that, but we think the testimony provides a clear picture. Persons have to make up their minds what the picture is, but it’s stated very clearly by the witnesses.”