01/06/2026
ROLLINS: TRANSPARENCY NEEDED IN BASTIAN, MILLER-BRICE CABINET APPTS
Early in this new Davis administration, we are quickly realizing that this appears to be a government of darkness and not progress. Despite its re-election victory, the Bahamian electorate did not grant the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) a license to do whatever it pleases.
There remain far more questions than answers regarding two of the prime minister’s Cabinet appointments. Despite the Gaming Board’s (the Board) recent press statement on the matter, it does not address the methods employed to make the Cabinet appointments of the Hon. Leslia Miller-Brice and the Hon. Sebas Bastian compliant with the law.
Section 25, subsection 1 (c) of the 2014 Gaming Act (the Act), disqualifies a person from holding gaming employment licenses if they are a member of the Cabinet or the family member of such a person. Section 26, subsection 2 (a) prohibits a member of the Cabinet or the family member of such a person from holding other categories of gaming licenses or a financial interest of five percent or more in the holder of such licenses.
Consistent with global best practices, these rules were designed to maintain regulatory integrity, due to the potential for undue influence by a licensee who is a member of the executive branch of the government, and protect the public interest. With gaming houses being highly vulnerable to the risks of money laundering, it is definitely not in the public interest to create opportunities for undue influence to affect the work of industry regulators. This begs the question: Whose interest is this government prioritizing?
In the Act, a Financial Interest is defined as “a right or entitlement to share in profits or revenue; or a direct or indirect interest in the voting shares, or voting rights attached to shares of a company, but excludes…any indirect interest held through any fund or investment if the person holding such interest has no control over the investment decisions made in respect of that fund or investment.” It appears that this latter exception is what the Davis administration is relying on to justify ignoring the advice of the Board’s own attorney by appointing two individuals with publicly established ties to gaming house licenses to serve in the Cabinet without first making amendments to the Act. It is noteworthy that this exception to the rule is arguably only applicable to passive investments like securities investments, and not legal trusts, which do not necessarily preclude a shareholder from taking an active, participatory role in the decision making of a gaming operator whenever they so choose.
We do not know and have not been told by the government, which ironically claims it is interested in fully implementing the Freedom of Information Act, or the Board whether Mr. Bastian has divested himself of his shares in Island Luck. Therefore, in this environment of non-transparency, we must assume that Mr. Bastian still retains his ownership interest in Island Luck. With regard to the honorable member for Seabreeze, we have been told nothing about how or whether her husband has divested himself of his shares in Asure Win. In the case of both individuals, how are their financial interests in those shares being held and who has control over them?
This entire situation is very muddy and shows government’s disregard for the Bahamian people’s right to be assured that their government respects them and is willing to answer pertinent questions. The Bahamian people deserve to know how these individuals have treated their financial interests in gaming houses to justify their inclusion in the Cabinet.
