by Adrian Gibson
When Hannes Babak was first appointed Chairman of the Grand Bahama Port Authority, I wrote a column supporting it and denouncing Sen. Philip Galanis’ seeming mischief-making attempts. At that time, I felt that the stakeholders in the Port had a right to appoint whoever they felt was right and supported the notion that they should have the autonomy and wherewithal to do so without the government’s interference.
That was then……with the plethora of controversial incidents and court documents that allege that he has engaged in underhanded business practices since his appointment, Mr Babak’s appointment has obviously been taxing as it relates to all port operations and the relationship between its major stakeholders!
Frankly, to save whatever remains of the GBPA, Hannes Babak must go!
I am against government interference on many issues, but in an atmosphere where the livelihoods of many Grand Bahamians are at stake, the government must execute its right in Freeport as outlined in the Hawksbill Creek Agreement. It is imperative that the Prime Minister engage in meetings with the stakeholders of the Port, Hannes Babak and Grand Bahamians (particularly those in Freeport) with a few to resolving the ruckus now facing the port and by extension the nation’s second city.
Sir Jack, for the good of all, Mr Babak must go….
The Prime Minister, as head of government is but one third of the equation,as outlined in the Hawksbill Creek Agreement.
First, let’s help all concerned with educating themselves on the agreement and its amendments, The 1970 Royal Comission report and the Freeport city bylaws act.
A large part of the problem is that what exists does not resemble what was supposed to be,
in size nor practice.
I believe there is a light at the end of the tunnel, and decent reason will prevail, for the benefit of all.
Dialog driven by mutual knowledge, understanding, purpose and benefit is the only way forward.
If the Prime Minister intervenes, I hope he does not use the methods that have helped create this fiasco.
Frankly Adrian, I don’t follow your logic: If principle guided your initial support for Babak’s appointment, why would you allow gossip and unsubstantiated allegations to cause you to withdraw it?
I think this boardroom implosion at the GBPA has a silver lining. Because the adversarial proceedings in court will finally shed light not only on its arcane ownership but also its (“mafia-style”) business practices.
Something’s got to give, but I always hesitate encouraging politicians to solve things in the private/business sector.
They have a terrible track record with government, so I doubt they will do much better “solving” the issues at the GBPA.
Anthony, I would not call the breakdown of the port merely a “board room implosion”. You and I know better than that.
I supported the decision because it was that of the direct stakeholders in the GBPA getting their best man….I dont anymore because their man appointment has led to a wave of resignations, mistrust and destryed relationships and the possible meltdown of Grand Bahama’s economy–far beyond the poor shape it already finds itself in….this has nothing to do with gossip or any “unsubstantiated allegations”.
Familiarize yourself with the Hawksbill Creek Agreement and you will see my point…the way Freeport is now run and the downfall we are now seeing is not what was envisaged when it first began. This is about the people of Freeport abd Grand Bahama, not pandering to some ego or continuing to support something that I now find troublesome.