Connect with us

National

Public Reacts, FNM Demands Answers on Brice and Bastian Appointments

NASSAU, BAHAMAS – Fresh off his swearing-in as leader of the opposition, Free National Movement Leader Michael Pintard says the party is standing firm on its demands for answers regarding the cabinet appointments of Leslia Miller-Brice and Sebastian Bastian.

Published

on


Advertisement

NASSAU, BAHAMAS – Fresh off his swearing-in as leader of the opposition, Free National Movement Leader Michael Pintard says the party is standing firm on its demands for answers regarding the cabinet appointments of Leslia Miller-Brice and Sebastian Bastian.

On Sunday, the FNM released a statement calling for full transparency and immediate clarification, arguing that the appointments raise serious legal and ethical questions that should be fully disclosed, and if necessary, tested before the courts.

The controversy centers around the appointments of Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage Leslia Miller-Brice, and Minister of Innovation and National Development Sebastian Bastian.

The appointments quickly sparked intense online debate, with many social media users questioning whether the appointments conflict with sections 25 and 26 of the 2014 Gaming Act.

Those sections state that anyone holding a gaming employee licence, or their spouse or family member, cannot serve on a gaming board or be appointed to cabinet.

In March of this year, Bastian resigned as Chief Executive Officer of Island Luck, a position he held for 17 years.

Meanwhile, Leslia Miller-Brice is the wife of GLK Limited/Asure Win Gaming House CEO Leander Brice, who reportedly resigned from his position just before the appointments were announced.

While some social media users offered congratulations to the newly appointed ministers, others were far more critical.

One user wrote, “Horrible decision. Corruption!!! This government is already failing.”

Another commenter argued that if a person is lawfully qualified to contest elections and is not expressly disqualified by the constitution, then additional restrictions could amount to what they called “constitutionally unsupported discrimination.”

The government has not yet responded directly to the growing controversy.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Trending