Minister of Finance Michael Halkitis finally addressed the growing controversy surrounding the National Investment Fund in Parliament on Wednesday in the House of Assembly.
But after eight minutes, the government explained its position but did not necessarily answer the questions.
Halkitis’ central argument was straightforward. He said Parliament authorised the government on March 10, 2025 to borrow up to $300 million and deposit the proceeds into the NIF for national development and infrastructure.
He also said the Public Finance Management Act governed the administration and application of those resources through the Ministry of Finance and Treasury.
And, importantly, Halkitis said the government sought advice from the Attorney General on the interaction between the Public Finance Management Act, the NIF Act and the relevant parliamentary authority.
The government, he said, acted in accordance with that advice.
Then came the spending figures: Halkitis said $310.9 million in NIF proceeds had been used for public infrastructure and strategic national assets.
Of that, $210.6 million went toward buildings, roads, water infrastructure and other public assets, while another $100.3 million was allocated to aviation infrastructure, including projects in Long Island, Cat Island, Exuma and San Salvador.
This is a broader government account of where the money went, according to Halkitis, but it also raises new questions.
The central controversy has been about authority and governance.
Central Bank Governor John Rolle previously confirmed that the NIF Board of Governors had never formally convened to conduct business, while an account in the NIF’s name existed and transactions began in July 2025.
Halkitis’ response was that the Ministry of Finance operated within the authority provided by the Public Finance Management Act, supported by legal advice.
But the public has not seen that legal advice, nor did the eight-minute response provide a transaction-by-transaction accounting showing precisely when money entered and left the NIF, who authorised each movement, or which specific projects received each payment.
Then there is the broader NIF story involving the hundreds of millions in excess borrowing receipts previously disclosed by the government.
These figures need to be reconciled so Bahamians can see the complete picture.
Halkitis has provided Parliament with the government’s explanation, but the next stage should be evidence. Can the government provide the legal advice, the financial records, the transaction trail, and the project-level breakdown?
Ultimately, this is a question about how public money was authorised, controlled, spent and should be accounted for.