The Glass House of Dr Duane Sands: A Study in Political Amnesia

It takes significant confidence for Dr Duane Sands, Chairman of the Free National Movement (FNM), to address the Bahamian people and raise concerns about a “credibility crisis.” In his recent critique of Prime Minister Philip Brave Davis over the Grand Lucayan sale, Sands drew on Grand Bahamians’ frustrations to suggest that “nobody believes anything this Prime Minister says anymore.”

While the delays surrounding the Grand Lucayan are a legitimate matter of public concern, the messenger in this instance is so deeply compromised by his own history of “bad judgment” and “breach of protocol” that his words don’t just ring hollow—they vibrate with hypocrisy. Before Dr Sands attempts to diagnose the government with a credibility ailment, he would do well to check his own political pulse.

To understand the disingenuous nature of Sands’ current outrage, one must look at the trail of wreckage he left behind as a Cabinet Minister. The Bahamian public has not forgotten the “Magic Touch” scandal. During the Frank Smith trial, Sands himself confessed to deviating from normal procedures to award a nearly $2 million contract to a cleaning company without board approval. The fact that the owner of that company was a campaign contributor isn’t just a “procedural hiccup”; it is the very definition of the cronyism that undermines the bedrock of our democracy.

When a leader demonstrates a willingness to bypass the rules for personal or political allies, they forfeit the moral high ground needed to critique others’ transparency. If Dr Sands believes the Davis administration is being “silent,” what does he call his own decision to bypass official boards to steer millions in taxpayer funds?

Perhaps the most damning indictment of Sands’ judgment was his forced resignation in May 2020. At a time when the entire nation was locked down—when Bahamians were trapped abroad, families were separated, and the economy was paralyzed—Dr. Sands saw fit to facilitate a “breach of protocol” for permanent residents entering the country.

This wasn’t just a mistake; it was an elitist betrayal. It sent a clear message: there is one set of rules for the “connected” and another for the common Bahamian. For the man who presided over this staggering display of irresponsibility to now complain about a “credibility crisis” suggests a level of narcissism that borders on the pathological. He didn’t just break a rule; he broke the public trust during the greatest health crisis of our lifetime.

Sands’s attempt to pin the Grand Lucayan’s stagnation solely on the current administration is a masterpiece of historical revisionism. Let us be clear: the government owns that “cornerstone property” because the Minnis administration—which Sands served—made the ill-advised decision to purchase a failing resort with $65 million of public money in 2018.

The FNM had years to flip that property. They signed a deal with Royal Caribbean and ITM that languished for nearly two years before being mercifully cancelled. To suggest that the Davis administration is the sole architect of this “crisis” ignores the fact that the FNM handed them a poisoned chalice. Sands is shouting about the fire while holding the matches that his own party used to light it.

Now, we see Dr Sands in Bamboo Town, attempting to pivot his image into that of a “man of the people.” But the persona is transparent. His political trajectory has always been defined by an obsession with living up to the shadow of Hubert Ingraham, chasing a legacy of “toughness” while lacking the fundamental stability to handle the pressure of high office without cutting corners.

The Bahamian people are not as forgetful as Dr Sands hopes. We see the pattern:

Dr Duane Sands’ recent comments are not a service to the people of Grand Bahama; they are a desperate attempt at political relevance from a man whose career is a case study in administrative malpractice. If the Davis administration is facing a “credibility crisis,” then Dr Sands is currently in a “credibility bankruptcy.”

Until he can explain why he felt entitled to break lockdown laws or bypass tender boards, his critiques of the Prime Minister are nothing more than “crickets” echoing in an empty glasshouse.