NIF

Prime Minister Philip Davis says the Bahamas has recorded its first fiscal surplus since independence. The opposition says the numbers do not tell the whole story, and a prominent Bahamian banker is warning that the accounting questions need answers before anyone celebrates.

So, what exactly should Bahamians believe?

On preliminary figures, the government boasted that it recorded a $39.3 million surplus for the 2025/2026 fiscal year, with revenue of $3.96 billion against expenditure of $3.92 billion. That represents a significant turnaround from the $84.8 million deficit recorded the previous year.

The debate is over how the numbers were calculated.

The dispute centres on the National Investment Fund (NIF) and the government’s handling of hundreds of millions of dollars in borrowing proceeds and capital investment.

Finance Minister Michael Halkitis previously said approximately $700 million in excess borrowing proceeds was transferred to the NIF, while $310.9 million was used for infrastructure and national assets.

Opposition Leader Michael Pintard and Shadow Minister for Finance Kwasi Thompson argues that NIF-related expenditure should be reflected in the government’s overall fiscal position. The government, meanwhile, has defended its accounting treatment and pointed to the accounts supporting its reported surplus.

If capital works were financed through the NIF, how were those transactions recorded? Was the Fund treated consistently with the accounting rules used for the government’s fiscal balance? What were the legal arrangements governing the accounts, and who authorised the transactions?

Those questions raised determine whether the public can understand the figures being presented.

Fidelity Bank (Bahamas) president Gowon Bowe, speaking to Eye Witness News, cautioned that the reported figures are preliminary, unaudited and subject to change. He has also questioned the treatment of NIF expenditure and pointed to the need for consistent accounting.

There is another detail that needs examining: the Domestic Minimum Top-Up Tax generated $68.6 million during the fiscal year. Bowe argued that, holding other figures constant, without that revenue the reported surplus would instead have been a deficit of approximately $29.3 million.

That does raise questions about the composition of the result and whether the revenue can be sustained.

The public needs a transparent reconciliation of the money borrowed, transferred, spent and remaining, alongside the accounting treatment applied to those transactions.

The Public Accounts Committee and the Auditor General’s Office have scrutiny roles in the NIF controversy, with questions still being pursued about records, governance and financial controls.

Davis may be right that the country has reached a historic fiscal milestone, but his critics may be right that important questions are still not answered.

The surplus celebrated by the government and dismissed by the Opposition needs understanding. If the numbers withstand scrutiny, the records should help demonstrate that. If adjustments or explanations are needed, the public deserves those too.

But Bahamians need to see clearly how that result was reached.

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.