19/05/2026
May 19, 2026
Press Statement
Bahamas Christian Council Calls on the Prime Minister to Reconsider Cabinet Appointments Involving Gaming Interests
The Bahamas Christian Council notes with deep concern the appointment of two Cabinet Ministers whose longstanding public association with the gaming industry has raised serious questions in the minds of many Bahamians.
We speak on this matter not from a place of personal opposition toward any individual, nor from a desire to inflame public controversy. We speak because the Bahamas Christian Council has a solemn responsibility to help shape the moral fiber of the nation, to defend principles that preserve public trust, and to raise its voice when the integrity of our democracy is at stake.
This concern must be understood against the backdrop of recent Bahamian history.
On January 28, 2013, the Bahamian people were asked in a national referendum whether they supported the regulation and taxation of web shop gaming and whether they supported the establishment of a national lottery. Both proposals were rejected by the electorate.
Nevertheless, in 2014, Parliament enacted the Gaming Act, thereby creating the legal and regulatory framework for domestic gaming in The Bahamas. Whatever one’s view of that decision, the Act included an important and deliberate safeguard: a firewall intended to keep Cabinet authority and gaming interests clearly separated.
That firewall was not accidental. It was not incidental. It was a matter of sound public policy.
Sections 25 and 26 of the Gaming Act establish restrictions that prevent Cabinet Ministers, and in certain circumstances their close relations, from holding specified gaming licences or significant financial interests in the holders of such licences. The plain wisdom behind those provisions is clear. They exist to guard against:
• Conflicts of interest between public duty and private financial benefit
• The possibility of undue influence or regulatory decision-making
• The erosion of public trust in Cabinet decision making
• The appearance that national policy may be shaped by private commercial interests
• The danger of a highly regulated and socially sensitive industry gaining improper proximity to executive power
The Gaming Act itself repeatedly reflects an overriding concern for conflict of interest and public trust within the gaming regulatory system. That same principle must surely apply with even greater force where executive government is concerned.
We acknowledge that the Ministers in question have indicated that they have satisfied the legal requirements necessary to serve in Cabinet. However, no public evidence has yet been produced that fully resolves the concern held by many citizens: whether these individuals have truly and completely relinquished any direct or indirect interest, influence, or continuing financial benefit from gaming enterprises with which they have been closely identified.
This matter is not merely about technical compliance. It is about public confidence, good governance, and the spirit of the law.
The concern, therefore, is not personal. It is principled.
The Prime Minister has repeatedly expressed his commitment to good governance, transparency, and accountability. Indeed, in July 2025, Prime Minister Davis publicly stated that his government had no intention of amending the law to allow Cabinet Ministers to hold interests in gaming licences, saying that such a change was “not on the table.”
That statement reflected sound judgment. It acknowledged the wisdom of the law and the importance of maintaining a clear firewall between gaming interests and executive government.
In light of that position, the present appointments have created a dark cloud that should not be dismissed lightly. Even if legal opinions have been obtained, and even if steps have been taken to satisfy the letter of the law, the broader and more important question remains:
Has the spirit of the law been honored?
The Bahamian people should not be asked to accept what appears to be legal gymnastics crafted to get one over on the law. When a statute is enacted to prevent a particular ethical danger, government must not appear to be searching for pathways around the very concern the law was designed to address.
Paul admonished in 1 Thessalonians 5:22 (NKJV): Abstain from every form of evil.
In public life, that principle is especially weighty. Leaders must not only avoid impropriety; they must avoid arrangements that reasonably create the appearance of impropriety and weaken public confidence.
This is especially troubling because the underlying public suspicion is not unreasonable. These are not individuals with distant, incidental, or obscure connections to gaming. They are persons publicly known for significant and longstanding association with gaming enterprises. The public is therefore hard pressed to believe, without clear and compelling disclosure, that all relevant interests and benefits have been fully severed in substance and not merely rearranged in form.
The Bahamas Christian Council is also concerned about the wider national and international implications of this matter.
The Bahamas is preparing for its CFATF Fifth Round Mutual Evaluation, with the on-site review scheduled for October 19 to 30, 2026. CFATF stands for the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force, the regional body that evaluates compliance with global standards set by the FATF, the Financial Action Task Force. The evaluation will examine the effectiveness of The Bahamas’ AML/CFT/CPF framework, meaning Anti-Money Laundering, Countering the Financing of Terrorism, and Countering Proliferation Financing. The Central Bank of The Bahamas has described 2026 as a crucial year for this work.
In that context, it is reasonable to ask whether sufficient consideration was given to how these appointments may be perceived by international evaluators, financial institutions, and stakeholders in the financial services sector. The issue is not whether the appointments will automatically affect the Mutual Evaluation. The issue is whether they risk sending a conflicting signal at a time when The Bahamas must demonstrate strong governance, credible safeguards, and sensitivity to conflicts of interest involving high-risk and highly regulated sectors.
The financial services industry is too important to the national economy for government to ignore any action that may raise unnecessary questions about transparency, regulatory credibility, or the integrity of public decision making. The Bahamas should be presenting its strongest possible face to the international community, not introducing avoidable concerns that require explanation.
The government may ultimately argue that it has satisfied the technical requirements of the Gaming Act. But on this issue, it risks being weighed in the balance and found wanting.
The nation needs a Cabinet that is not only legally constituted, but publicly trusted. It needs a government whose actions affirm that the public interest stands above the advancement of any individual. It needs leadership willing to recognize that some decisions, even if technically defensible, may still be politically unwise, morally troubling, and damaging to public confidence.
We therefore respectfully urge the Prime Minister to reconsider these appointments.
History often remembers leaders not only for the decisions they stand by, but also for the moments when they show the wisdom and courage to place the good of the country above the advancement of any individual. This is one of those moments.
You have just been entrusted once again with the leadership of our beloved Bahamas. A decision to reconsider these appointments would send a powerful message to the nation that you are listening, that you understand the weight of the public concern, and that when confidence in government is at stake, you are prepared to act in the broader national interest.
Such a decision would not diminish your leadership. It would elevate it. It would demonstrate strength, humility, and statesmanship. It would show that your commitment to good governance is not merely something spoken, but something practiced, even when the decision is difficult.
The Bahamas Christian Council seeks no credit in this matter. Our only concern is that public confidence be restored, that the spirit of the law be honored, that the integrity of our democracy be protected, and that the national interest be placed beyond question.
Our appeal, therefore, is made in hope. We ask the Prime Minister to choose the path that removes the cloud, strengthens his hand, honors the wisdom of the Gaming Act, protects The Bahamas’ international reputation, and reassures the Bahamian people that good governance will remain a defining mark of his leadership.
The spirit of the law must never be sacrificed on the altar of technical compliance.
End Release
