Michael Pintard Must Come With Clean Hands

If Michael Pintard wants the Bahamian people to entrust him with the highest political office in the country, then he must come before them with clean hands—and that means confronting, fully and unambiguously, one of the most troubling controversies of his political career.

Nearly a decade has passed since the explosive episode commonly associated in the public discourse with the words “murder for hire.” Those words are extraordinarily serious. They should never be casually attached to anyone, and allegations should never be confused with proven facts. But a man seeking to become Prime Minister cannot reasonably expect Bahamians to forget that controversy.

In March 2016, Pintard resigned as chairman of the Free National Movement and from the Senate amid controversy surrounding an alleged murder-for-hire scheme involving Peter Nygard, Save The Bays and two Haitian men identified as Livingston “Toggie” Bullard and Wisler “Bobo” Davilma. Recordings had emerged in which Pintard could be heard discussing matters connected with affidavits and money. Pintard maintained that his involvement concerned uncovering alleged wrongdoing.

That distinction matters. But so does public confidence.

The issue today is not whether political opponents can recycle an old accusation. The issue is whether Pintard has given the Bahamian people an explanation comprehensive enough to permanently remove the cloud. Why did he not go to the police?

He should.

Pintard should voluntarily stand before the country and explain the entire episode from beginning to end. Who first contacted whom? What exactly was his role? On whose behalf was he acting? What meetings did he attend? What money was discussed, by whom and for what purpose? What compensation, if any, was ultimately provided to the men involved? What did Pintard know about the underlying allegations, and when did he know it? Why did he choose the course of action he took? Why did he resign? And, looking back with the benefit of a decade’s experience, would he handle anything differently today?

These questions do not presume guilt. They are questions that demand accountability.

Indeed, if Pintard believes—as he has maintained—that his actions were intended to expose wrongdoing, then a complete public accounting should work in his favour. Put the documents on the table. Establish the chronology. Address the recordings in their full context. Answer the uncomfortable questions himself rather than leaving Bahamians to piece together fragments from political advertisements, old headlines, social media clips and partisan accusations.

Leadership requires more than criticizing the government of the day. It requires convincing citizens that you can be trusted with their government tomorrow.

Perhaps this controversy has unfairly followed Michael Pintard. Perhaps critical context has been lost over the years. If so, he has every reason to correct the record comprehensively.

But silence leaves room for the political “boogeyman” to survive.

Michael Pintard wants Bahamians to consider him ready to lead the country. Before asking for that extraordinary trust, he should settle this extraordinary question.

Not with slogans. Not through surrogates. Not by attacking his accusers.

With facts.

Come before the Bahamian people. Tell the whole story. Answer every reasonable question.

And let the public judge.