progressiveliberalparty

For decades, St Anne’s has been regarded as one of the most reliable strongholds for the Free National Movement, a constituency widely considered a “safe seat” for the party.

But as the country moves closer to another general election, the race is drawing attention.

Incumbent MP Adrian White will once again carry the FNM banner, facing a challenge from Keno Wong of the Progressive Liberal Party and Graham Weatherford of the Coalition of Independents.

Historically, voters in St Anne’s have consistently supported the FNM. In 2007, veteran politician Brent Symonette secured the seat for the party. Five years later, in 2012, the constituency elected Hubert Chipman. Symonette returned in 2017 before stepping aside ahead of the 2021 general election, when White captured the seat.

In that race, White won decisively with 2,007 votes. Christopher Saunders, running for the PLP at the time, received 1,253 votes, while COI candidate Sheneise Miller secured 172. Candidates from the Democratic National Alliance and independents combined for just 82 votes.

For PLP Wong, the numbers reflect a long-standing political loyalty he hopes to shift. He has lived in the area for years, and says his deep ties to the community motivated him to enter frontline politics. Wong has argued that while the constituency has historically supported the FNM, residents may now be ready for new leadership.

White, however, remains confident. During his ratification, he pointed to his record in office and reaffirmed his commitment to advancing the FNM’s vision for the constituency, expressing confidence that voters will give him a second term.

Weatherford, new to frontline politics, the strength of his ground campaign remains unclear. But as frustration with the traditional two-party system grows, third-party candidates could siphon votes that might otherwise determine the results in close races.

In the Bahamas, the power to call a general election does not rest with a party chairman. That authority belongs to the prime minister, who advises the governor general on when parliament should be dissolved.

So when Fred Mitchell, chairman of the Progressive Liberal Party, told supporters in a voice note that the country will face a general election “in the next few weeks,” it immediately raised a political question: Why is the party chairman talking about election timing before the prime minister does?

Under the Constitution, the decision ultimately belongs to Philip Davis, who leads the government and would determine when voters return to the polls.

Mitchell’s comment could be interpreted in several ways:

One possibility is that the statement is simply part of the PLP’s political messaging. Party officials often warn supporters that an election could come at any time to mobilize and energize the base and prepare candidates for a sudden campaign.

Another explanation is strategic signalling. By publicly suggesting that an election may be near, as party chairman, he can help shape the national conversation, forcing political opponents—The Free National Movement, the third-party Coalition of Independents and the media to begin speculating about timing and readiness.

There is also the possibility that Mitchell was reflecting confidence within the PLP that preparations are nearing completion. Campaign infrastructure, including candidate ratifications, fundraising and messaging, typically intensifies before these signals are stated publicly.

However, speaking about election timing before Davis can carry risks. It may appear as though Mitchell is pre-empting the authority of the prime minister, or creating expectations about a timeline that has not been formally announced.

The comment may not necessarily reveal when the election will be called, but it does suggest that the PLP believes the campaign season will intensify.

Whether the election is truly “weeks away” remains a decision that only Davis can make.

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.

As Election 2026 approaches, a question is surfacing again: Are members of the Free National Movement judged more harshly in controversy than their Progressive Liberal Party counterparts?

Among some voters, the perception is clear. When allegations or associations emerge, FNM figures often face swift calls for resignation or withdrawal. PLP leaders, critics argue, are more likely to defend, dismiss or outlast controversy.

The difference lies not just in the issue but in the response.

In 2023, when Immigration Minister Keith Bell faced criticism over decisions that some said bypassed senior immigration officials, the FNM called for his resignation. At the time, PLP Chairman Fred Mitchell publicly said he advised Bell not to respond to the controversy, suggesting it would not be beneficial.

The incident showed the PLP’s instinct to contain and stand firm rather than concede ground.

The pattern is being debated again.

After the arrest of Malcolm Goodman in the United States on drug charges, some PLP voices called on the FNM to reconsider Marvin Dames’ nomination for Mt Moriah, despite Dames not being accused of wrongdoing.

Dames acknowledged a past business arrangement with Goodman but denied any knowledge of alleged criminal activity.

At the same time, Sebas Bastian’s name appeared in recently released Jeffrey Epstein-related documents referencing trafficking allegations — allegations he has denied.

There has been no internal campaign within PLP ranks demanding political distance.

Prime Minister Philip Davis publicly stood by Bastian, insisting the claims would not affect the party’s election campaign.

Davis has also publicly stood by businessman Adrian Fox, who previously faced U.S. legal trouble connected to human smuggling allegations before entering a plea to a lesser vessel-related charge.

Davis told reporters Fox was both a client and a friend. He wrote to a U.S. judge urging a lenient sentence and later said that if given the opportunity, he would do it again.

To critics, this posture signals boldness, even defiance, in the face of controversy. To supporters, it reflects loyalty and a belief in second chances.

The broader question remains: Is accountability applied consistently, or through partisan lenses?

As the 2026 election campaign intensifies, two names, absent from the ballot, have begun circulating in the political conversation — Malcolm Goodman and Adrian Fox.

Neither is seeking office. Both, however, are business associates of candidates representing opposing parties.

Goodman’s story unfolded at sea.

U.S. authorities intercepted a 45-foot vessel near Florida and reported discovering roughly 200 kilograms of cocaine onboard. Goodman, identified as the vessel’s captain, was arrested and charged with possession with intent to distribute and importation of a controlled substance.

Before his arrest, Goodman was known as an experienced Bahamian A-Class captain and certified diver, offering chartered experiences on open water.

In 2024, he entered into a business arrangement with former National Security Minister and Mount Moriah candidate for the Free National Movement Marvin Dames. When news of the arrest broke, Dames publicly acknowledged the partnership but swiftly distanced himself, stating that neither he nor his wife had knowledge of or involvement in any alleged unlawful activity.

Goodman has taken responsibility.

Dames has not been accused of wrongdoing.

While Goodman’s case proceeds through the American court system, another name resurfaced in public discussion.

Adrian Fox, businessman and co-founder of Island Luck, had past U.S. legal matters and references in the recently released Jeffrey Epstein files. Fox is the business partner of Ambassador and Progressive Liberal Party candidate for Fort Charlotte, Sebas Bastian.

Both men were named in documents containing allegations of human and firearms trafficking — allegations they have denied.

Years earlier, Fox faced human trafficking charges in the United States connected to vessel operations in American waters. He ultimately entered a plea agreement tied to operating a vessel in a grossly negligent manner.

In 2021, Prime Minister Philip Davis confirmed he wrote to a U.S. judge on Fox’s behalf, describing him as his client and friend, and someone who had reordered his life and contributed positively to his community, urging a light, non-custodial sentence.

Character references were also submitted by Cabinet ministers Jomo Campbell and Alfred Sears, former ministers Shane Gibson and Leslie Miller, Sea Breeze MP Leslia Miller, and her husband Leander Brice, owner of the Asure Win web shop chain.

Davis said if he had to do it again, he would.

Neither Goodman nor Fox is campaigning, but as the election intensifies, their stories have become part of the season, where even association carries weight.

Southern Shores Member of Parliament Leroy Major has already revealed that he is at odds with his party, the Progressive Liberal Party, following a string of public statements.

He already said that he asked to run again for Southern Shores and was denied. The party ratified Obie Roberts instead. He publicly stated he would support Clint Watson, but not Roberts, and warned that the party would “have to face” him if the party did not oblige.

And just recently he fired back at Roberts in a video clip, accusing him of cleaning up a problem that he says was created after party headquarters interfered with contracts tied to his constituency.

He claimed the park maintenance was always under contract but alleged that someone from PLP headquarters removed his control over the contracts and reassigned them “just to sabotage me.”

He also insisted that ongoing roadwork in the area was Phase Two of a project he initiated — “nothing to do with you and nothing to do with the (PLP) banner.”

Leroy Major has two real options:

1. Run as an Independent.

This would split the PLP vote in Southern Shores and create a serious vulnerability for the party in a seat it would prefer to hold onto. Major has name recognition in the area and it is still not clear how strong his base is. Even if he does not win, he could weaken the PLP enough to make the race competitive.

2. Resign now.

This option is more explosive. If Major resigns before the general election, it could trigger a by-election. That forces Prime Minister Philip Davis into a strategic dilemma: call a by-election and risk a public intra-party fight, or dissolve Parliament earlier than expected and call a general election quickly.

The unity problem

The PLP has repeatedly framed itself as the party of unity, especially in contrast to the Free National Movement’s internal conflicts, but Southern Shores shows a different story.

Back in June 2025, Major told the Tribune that backbenchers were being sidelined in the Davis administration, claiming Cabinet ministers were leveraging public resources for political advantage while ordinary MPs were marginalized. He said other backbenchers shared similar concerns.

He later backtracked.

If Major runs independently, the narrative becomes, PLP infighting.

If he resigns, the public sees the PLP as unstable.

If he stays and quietly supports the party, he preserves unity, but at the cost of political leverage.

What’s really at stake

It is about whether Davis and Party Chairman Fred Mitchell can maintain the image of unity the party has leaned on heading into the next election.

In Southern Shores, the picture right now is striking–two members of the Progressive Liberal Party are talking about the same community work, but telling different stories.

Newly ratified Progressive Liberal Party candidate Obie Roberts recently posted a video showing that he cleared down an overgrown park in the Marshall Road, Misty Gardens area. Residents had reportedly complained about safety concerns while walking in the mornings and evenings.

Roberts said, with the assistance of the Bahamas Department of Corrections, the area was cleaned to make the environment safer.

It was a straightforward visual showing space cleared and the problem addressed.

But the sitting Member of Parliament Leroy Major, responded with a video of his own, and a sharp rebuttal to Roberts.

Major argued that the park had always been on contract and claimed someone from PLP headquarters took control of his constituency contracts and reassigned them. “Thank you for cleaning up the mess you created,” he said, suggesting the situation was political sabotage rather than service.

He also insisted that ongoing roadwork in the area was part of a second phase he initiated, not a new effort under the PLP.

Watch the video here.

What might have been election constituency maintenance has now become a public optics battle.

And it comes at a sensitive time which is election season.

Major was recently denied renomination by the PLP, despite requesting to run again. The party ratified Roberts instead. Major has since voiced frustration and even floated the possibility of running as an independent.

For a party emphasizing unity heading into a general election, the visual of two PLPs disputing credit in the same constituency is significant.

Voters in Southern Shores may care less about internal dynamics and more about whether their park is safe and their roads are paved. But perception matters in politics. When the party’s disagreements play out publicly, it raises questions about unity.

In election season, even bush clearing can become a battleground.

For decades, politics here has largely been a contest between the Progressive Liberal Party and the Free National Movement. Governance has alternated between the two major parties.

When voters grow frustrated with one, they turn to the other, hoping for change.

But a growing number of Bahamians, especially online, argue there is little difference at all.

Some Coalition of Independent supporters even fuse the names into one label: “PLPFNM.” The message is blunt and clear: two sides of the same coin, meaning different colours and similar results.

That sentiment has fueled interest in the Coalition of Independents, led by Lincoln Bain, whose social media presence is strong and whose supporters say they are tired of the traditional duopoly. For them, voting outside the two major parties is about protest and winning the government.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis is seeking another term, arguing his administration has delivered stability and recovery. On the other side, Michael Pintard, now leading the FNM, presents himself as a renewed alternative, hoping to convince voters that his party represents a different direction.

So what is the wisest choice for voters who feel stuck?

In the Bahamas, seats are won constituency by constituency, and third parties struggle to convert energy into parliamentary seats. A protest vote may send a signal, but it may not change who governs.

Staying home, some argue, is a form of protest, but low voter turnout rarely disrupts political patterns and often strengthens them.

Choosing between imperfect options is uncomfortable, but elections are about power — who gets it, and what they do with it.

For voters wrestling with “PLPFNM” fatigue, the real question may not be who is the lesser of two evils, but it may be, ‘which choice gives my vote the greatest impact?

Carmichael is shaping up to be a rematch of unfinished rivalries.

When voters return to the polls when the election is called, they will see familiar names again, incumbent Keith Bell for the Progressive Liberal Party, Arinthia Komolafe now carrying the Free National Movement banner, and Charlotte Greene representing the Coalition of Independents.

It is not the first time these candidates have faced each other.

In 2017, Bell lost the seat to FNM Desmond Bannister. Four years later, in 2021, Bell reclaimed Carmichael, defeating Bannister with 1,922 votes to Bannister’s 1,603. That race also included Komolafe, then leader of the Democratic National Alliance, who earned 210 votes, and Greene, who received 155.

Now, the dynamic has changed.

Komolafe is no longer running as a third-party leader. She now stands as the official FNM candidate in the same constituency, facing the same opponents — minus Bannister.

That raises key questions: Will traditional FNM voters support Komolafe? Can she consolidate what was once a divided anti-PLP vote? And how much weight does incumbency carry for Bell?

Carmichael’s election 2021 numbers suggest it is a competitive constituency. If Bannister’s previous base and Komolafe’s DNA supporters align under one banner, the race tightens considerably.

But this election will also be about personality, the strength of the ground campaign, and national mood of the country.

Bell carries a ministerial position, which could be an advantage over Komolafe and Greene. For Komolafe, the FNM’s major party machinery offers broader voter outreach and infrastructure than she had as a third-party leader.

Greene could influence the number of votes if it is close at the polls.