grandbahama

Marco City will be watched closely in the upcoming general election, and at the center of it is Michael Pintard.

The Free National Movement leader is seeking a third consecutive term as Member of Parliament for the Grand Bahama seat, a break from the constituency’s long-standing pattern of turnovers.

This time, the PLP has put forward Edward Whan, a businessman from Freeport, while the Coalition of Independents is represented by Jillian Bartlett. It raises familiar questions about vote splitting and whether third-party candidates can meaningfully disrupt the two-party race.

Historically, Marco City has switched between the FNM and the Progressive Liberal Party every election cycle, making sustained dominance rare.

The seat has moved from Pleasant Bridgewater (PLP) to Zhivargo Laing (FNM), then to Greg Moss (PLP), before Pintard’s back-to-back victories.

Pintard first won the seat in 2017 and held it again in 2021, where he secured 2,340 votes, comfortably ahead of PLP candidate Curt G. Hollingsworth, who received 1,359. Third-party and independent candidates, including those aligned with the Coalition of Independents, collectively drew a smaller but notable share of the vote.

Still, the focus remains on Pintard.

As both incumbent and party leader, his candidacy carries weight beyond the constituency. A third win would solidify his local political strength but also show momentum for the FNM nationally. A loss, however, would raise immediate questions about the party’s path to government.

What was billed as a public town hall to “clear the air” about the government’s arbitration battle with the Grand Bahama Port Authority quickly turned into something far more political.

By the time the meeting got underway at the Bahamas Union of Teachers Hall in Freeport, the atmosphere already hinted at the direction the evening might take. The room was filled, though many attendees wore clothing and hats associated with the governing Progressive Liberal Party, including the party’s familiar “Safe with Brave” slogan tied to Philip Davis.

Even before the panel discussion began, moderator Joan Davis Rolle praised Davis.

Click here to watch the town hall meeting

The event’s stated purpose was to explain the recent arbitration ruling between the government and the Port Authority. Panelists — including attorneys Gregory Moss, Terrance Gape and Ernie Wallace — walked the audience through elements of the tribunal’s decision. Moss described the ruling as being “substantially in favor of the government,” echoing the position the Davis administration has taken since the decision was handed down.

Davis defended the decision to pursue arbitration, arguing that successive governments had long struggled with what he described as stagnation in Freeport’s development. He said the legal action was not personal but necessary.

“This is about Grand Bahama and the people,” Davis said, adding that the government is now open to negotiating the next phase of the relationship with the Port Authority ahead of the expiration of the Hawksbill Creek Agreement in 2054.

But the evening’s most dramatic moment came when Michael Pintard, leader of the opposition Free National Movement and MP for Marco City — the very constituency where the meeting was held — asked to address the room.

What followed was less dialogue and more confrontation.

As Pintard attempted to speak, sections of the crowd booed loudly, repeatedly shouting over him during his roughly 11-minute attempt to make remarks.

Pintard suggested that the people of Freeport, central government and licensees of the port collaborate. “Brother and sisters, you’ve heard the case by the four attornies, surely at the end of the presentation, if you have a problem with what I say, you will have an opportunity to make a decision. At least give me an opportunity to make the point.”

The crowd shouted, “Nooo, nooo.”

Later, when East Grand Bahama MP Kwasi Thompson attempted to raise questions during the forum, he too was heckled and faced interruptions, and at one point, his microphone was cut off.

He asked for clarification on the tribunal’s dismissal of the government’s claim of $375 million owed by the GBPA and Moss’ interpretation that it is “a judgement with damages to be assessed.”

In the end, the meeting offered a preview of how fiercely contested the debate over Freeport’s future is becoming as election season intensifies.

Grief settled over parts of Grand Bahama after the tragic death of G’Tero Foster, a 17-year-old student remembered by family and friends as a respectful young man with a bright future.

Leroy Bowe said he had only seen Foster days before the attack and remembered him as a polite young man.

“He was well-mannered,” Bowe said, still shaken by the news. “No parent wants to wake up to a nightmare like this.”

Foster died early Sunday morning after he and two other teenagers were attacked around 3 a.m. near a business establishment along Queen’s Highway. According to accounts, a group exited a vehicle and confronted the young men. Foster was stabbed multiple times and later died in the hospital.

In the hours that followed, tributes poured in across social media.

Abagail Higgs said the loss has left many struggling to make sense of the violence.

“He was a good child with plenty of potential,” she said.

One barber said he had just cut Foster’s hair on Saturday and was still in disbelief after hearing what happened hours later.

“He was just here,” the barber said. “I can’t believe he’s gone.”

Foster was a student at St. George’s High School, where he was remembered as a “beloved fellow Jaguar.”

Among the most heartbreaking reminders of the loss was a screenshot shared online of the final conversation between Foster and his mother, Latara Knowles.

“Why you ain’t home yet?” she asked him. “Don’t let me have to come for you.”

He replied: “Mommy, I ask you if I could’ve gone out.”

She responded, reminding him that he still had church in the morning.

“I never answer you. And you don’t like get up for church.”

“I coming to church,” he told her.

But he never made it.

For many who knew him, the pain of the moment is difficult to put into words.

“Tero, Tero. Oh my Lord. This hurts,” wrote Anishka Rolle.

Kim McKinney said the loss will stay with her. “I will forever miss and love you.”

Others spoke about the cruel reality that a life so young could end so suddenly.

“He was just a child who just started to live life,” Agnes Pratt said. “Now his life has been cut short by cowards with knives.”

Higgs said the family and community now hope for justice.

Scroll through the Facebook pages of the candidates from the Progressive Liberal Party and you may notice something unusual: all of them are posting nearly identical messages celebrating the government’s handling of the Grand Bahama Port Authority arbitration dispute.

The posts praise the leadership of Prime Minister Philip Davis, framing the arbitration ruling involving the GBPA as a major victory for the government. In several cases, the wording is almost exactly the same — congratulating Davis, describing his leadership as “decisive” and “courageous” and characterizing the moment as “pivotal in our nation’s history.”

So why the uniform message?

In an election season, the party has seemingly circulated the suggested talking points to candidates to ensure everyone communicates the same core message to the public—Davis won against GBPA.

The government had argued that the Grand Bahama Port Authority owed it $357 million, which it said represented reimbursement under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement for administrative services the state provides within the Port area.

However, the arbitration tribunal rejected the Davis administration’s claim for the $357 million. At the same time, the panel determined that the government is entitled to administrative payments following annual reviews under the terms of the agreement, as revised in 1994.

By repeating the same message of a ‘win’ across multiple candidates’ pages, the PLP is ensuring that voters hear a consistent narrative, that the government stood firm and successfully defended the country’s interests.

It is also a digital campaign strategy. When multiple candidates post similar messages, the narrative spreads faster across networks of supporters, with hopes to shape public perception.

Free National Movement Leader Michael Pintard has highlighted the PLP’s attempt to spin the narrative. Critics may view identical posts as evidence of political spin or scripting rather than candidate independent voices.

With an election on the horizon, controlling the narrative can be just as important as the ruling itself.

Following the arbitration ruling between the government and the Grand Bahama Port Authority (GBPA), Prime Minister Philip Davis described the decision as a “historic victory,” emphasizing that, for the first time, an independent tribunal confirmed the government’s right to payments under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement until 2054. He also underscored the tribunal’s affirmation that the government retains authority to govern Freeport.

At the same time, the GBPA celebrated what it called a landmark win, highlighting the tribunal’s rejection of the government’s claim that the Port Authority owed $357 million in reimbursements. That figure, previously described by Davis as money owed to the people over five fiscal years, was dismissed.

So who really came out on top?

Legally, the outcome is mixed.

The government did not secure the $357 million reimbursement it sought. That portion of the case was fully rejected. However, the tribunal affirmed that the government has a right to payments following annual reviews under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement as amended in 1994. That clarification may carry long-term financial implications, even if it falls short of the immediate lump sum originally pursued.

The tribunal also rejected seven of eight GBPA counterclaims, including claims related to licensing, immigration, customs and regulatory authority. Notably, the Port Authority’s argument that it is the sole regulator of utilities in the Port Area was dismissed. On governance questions, the government appears to have strengthened its position.

However, the ruling was not one-sided.

The tribunal upheld the GBPA’s counterclaim concerning delays in approving environmental by-laws and has asked both parties to submit further arguments regarding damages and costs. That means financial exposure for either side has not yet been fully determined.

What emerges is not a clear victory or defeat, but a recalibration.

The government gained affirmation of regulatory authority and long-term payment rights. The GBPA avoided a substantial reimbursement order and secured partial success on procedural matters.

For taxpayers and residents of Freeport, the more important question may be what happens next. The arbitration still does not automatically resolve longstanding tensions embedded in the Hawksbill Creek framework.

It remains to be seen how both parties proceed from here.

Pictured: Prime Minister Philip Davis and Ian Rolle (President of GBPA)

When the arbitration ruling between the government and the Grand Bahama Port Authority was delivered, one figure stood out—$357 million.

That was the amount the Davis administration previously said was owed to the people of the Bahamas. The tribunal dismissed that reimbursement claim.

Yet in the Prime Minister’s national address on Tuesday, that number was not the headline.

Instead, the focus was on what the government described as historic gains, affirmation of the government’s authority to govern Freeport and confirmation of its right to payments under the Hawksbill Creek Agreement until 2054.

So why emphasize those points and not the dismissed claim?

Part of the answer lies in political communication, particularly in a political season.

An election can be called at any moment, and parties are already campaigning. In this political environment, every major development is viewed not only through a legal lens but also through a political one.

Governments rarely center their messaging around setbacks during campaign season. They highlight wins, long-term implications, and areas where leadership appears strong and decisive.

From the administration’s perspective, the arbitration may have been about clarifying power and resetting the balance between the government and the Port Authority. On governance questions, the ruling appears to have strengthened the government’s position.

At the same time, the dismissal of the $357 million claim is significant. It was a specific financial assertion made public in 2024.

Opposition Leader Michael Pintard framed the outcome as a failure on the claim, arguing that arbitration was costly and did not deliver the promised reimbursement.

In election season, legal nuance often competes with political narrative.

Was this primarily about money, authority, or leverage? Voters may interpret the ruling differently depending on which element they consider most important.

Michael Pintard could become the first prime minister from Grand Bahama.

For the country’s ‘second city,’ that would represent a shift politically.

For decades, the prime ministership has largely centred around New Providence. But if Pintard, the leader of the Free National Movement and MP for Marco City, was to lead his party to a strong victory in Grand Bahama, it could change the island from an economic afterthought to a political driving force.

“We will deliver first-class public service, first-class representation, not with arrogance but with humility. No gimmicks, no games, we are here to usher in a new era for GB,” Pintard said about transforming the island on Friday at the FNM Grand Bahama Candidate Launch.

Grand Bahama has long been considered ‘FNM country’. Central and East Grand Bahama consistently vote FNM. Marco City has remained in FNM hands for two consecutive elections under Pintard. Pineridge is a swing seat. West Grand Bahama leans PLP but has flipped before.

If the FNM was to capture four or even all five seats on the island, it would send a powerful message.

It would show that Pintard can mobilise the island, widely seen as the FNM’s political base. A dominant performance in Grand Bahama would strengthen his leadership and build momentum.

Grand Bahama has endured years of economic strain, from the closure of the Grand Lucayan Resort to rising power bills, unemployment, and stalled development projects. Many voters are looking for a revival of the economy.

Pintard reminded Grand Bahamians: “The government does not have real plans for this island. You have not heard him (Davis) lay out a plan that can transform our lives. What he does do is he issues a new round of promises. He hasn’t affected your light bill; they haven’t gone down. What he hasn’t done is he hasn’t improved affordability. Some of you have moved two times, three times in one year…These are tough times for so many people.”

Still, even a sweep for Pintard in Grand Bahama would not automatically secure Pintard the Office of the Prime Minister because elections are decided seat by seat across the country.

However, if Pintard wins big in Grand Bahama, it could mark a turning point for the island.

Deputy Prime Minister Chester Cooper thought he was having a private exchange with Prime Minister Philip Davis at a press conference in Grand Bahama on Tuesday. Instead, a live microphone picked up a candid whisper, offering an unfiltered glimpse into how the government views criticism surrounding Grand Bahama’s economic recovery.

After Davis wrapped up his responses to reporters, Cooper leaned in and quietly said, “Celebration Cay has 1,200 employees. Grand Bahama Shipyard has another 1,200. Things are booming. That’s money in the economy. They want to pick at the negative. But well done.”

The moment came just seconds after reporters pressed Davis on whether residents are actually feeling the progress the government says is happening in the nation’s second city.

Watch here the Cabinet Press Conference in Grand Bahama

Eyewitness News reporter Jose Etienne asked Davis to point to tangible outcomes of the administration’s work, noting that some Grand Bahamians told him they had yet to see real change.

In response, Davis pointed to increased traffic from residents of other islands. “So that ought to speak to what’s happening,” he said. “We have created the conditions for economic growth. That’s why people are coming.”

He also highlighted a rise in tourism arrivals, saying current numbers have not been seen before.

It was after those remarks that Cooper’s whispered encouragement and frustration were captured by the hot mic.

The exchange took place during a Cabinet visit to Grand Bahama, where the government held meetings and made announcements related to the Grand Lucayan Resort and the Grand Bahama International Airport, two long-stalled projects now being emphasized ahead of the looming general election.

Why this matters

Cooper’s whispered frustration reveals pressure inside the government to defend its Grand Bahama record. That tells voters that Grand Bahama is still a battleground for the government, and the administration knows it. Cooper’s comments suggest the government believes economic gains in Grand Bahama are real, perhaps unfairly overshadowed by public criticism.

As the country moves closer to an election, Grand Bahama is again a political test. The issue remains whether progress is real.

Six years after Hurricane Dorian, one body still lies unclaimed in the Grand Bahama morgue.

The Ministry of Health confirmed the remains couldn’t be identified despite police forensic work.

Opposition Leader Michael Pintard called it hypocrisy, the same government that once accused the Hubert Minnis administration of negligence now faces the same problem.

But beyond politics lies a deeper question — how can a nation rebuild if its victims are still unburied?

The monster storm destroyed parts of Abaco and Grand Bahama, with hundreds of lives lost, and some remain missing. A mass burial was held for the victims, and all bodies found were thought to be buried.

Barri Bethel Thomas, who lost her husband and three children in the storm, questioned whether or not the body could be her relatives. She said she took a DNA test six years ago.

In a social media post in August, on the sixth anniversary, she recalled the fateful day, “The smell of Hurricane Dorian still lingers in my nose. I remember with unbearable clarity, watching as the 50 to 60-foot ocean swallowed my beloved family. The last words I heard from my husband were, “Lord help my family…I can still hear my babies screaming and crying out for their dad.”

Over these six years, I’ve fought some of the hardest battles of my life. I fought for the remains of my family, I never received them.”

The bottom line

Dorian’s wounds remain open, long after the storm passed. It now raises questions about accountability.

Featured images: The Atlantic and ABC News