Today's Front Page

By TAMARA McKENZIE,Guardian Staff Reporter tamara@nasguard.com

In their continued quest to block the proposed Passerine at Abaco development, the Save Guana Cay Reef Association has applied for and obtained a judicial review order against Prime Minister Perry Christie in his capacity as Minister responsible for Crown Lands.

The legal review is also against Wendell Major, Secretary of the National Economic Council and the Treasurer of The Bahamas, according to a statement issued to The Guardian from the Association.

The order was handed down in the Freeport Supreme Court on Tuesday by Justice Stephen Isaacs. The Guana Cay Association is being represented by Attorney Frederick Smith.

Since last year, residents of Guana Cay, represented by Mr Smith, have protested the $500 million Passerine at Abaco development.

The development includes the construction of a 585-acre luxury golf course, 240-slip marina and 350 residential lots, among other amenities. And although the government has already signed the Heads of Agreement for the development, Mr Smith has continuously criticized the government for allowing the Passerine Company to go ahead with its project.

Residents claimed that if the marina is constructed, it would kill the reef that is just 50 feet offshore, and the dredging for the proposed marina would destroy 70-plus acres of mangrove, fish estuary and create further damage to the land.

And on Tuesday, Mr Smith said that Minister of Financial Services and Investments, Allyson Maynard-Gibson, cannot "slice one third of Guana Cay and give it away to foreigners. The Bahamas, our crown land, does not belong to Perry Christie or Allyson Maynard-Gibson. If they want to give it away for free, there must at least be a debate about it in Parliament."

The court proceedings follow recent protests by the residents of Guana Cay who have continuously complained about the "deplorable" treatment received by them at the hands of the government by granting permission to the Passerine development to construct on Guana Cay.

According to the statement issued from the Guana Cay Association, the judicial review proceedings fall into five grounds. It firstly outlined that Wendell Major, who purportedly entered into the Heads of Agreement on behalf of the government, had no power or authority to do so because the National Economic Council does not exist.

Secondly, the decision to enter into the Heads of Agreement was "irrational," the Association said.

Thirdly the release stated, insofar as the Heads of Agreement purported to bind the Government and its agencies, it improperly fettered the statutory authorities.

The Association also maintained that the residents of Guana Cay had a legitimate expectation of full, frank and proper consultation prior to the Heads of Agreement being entered into, but this was not met. They, fifthly, stated that the development would destroy the marine and land environment.

The statement said the residents of Guana Cay satisfied the Supreme Court that they had a real and substantive interest in the matter concerned and that the application was not "frivolous, vexatious, hopeless, misconceived and groundless."

Mr Smith said the Save Guana Cay Association submitted that the National Economic Council does not exist and they could not bind the government. He indicated that the application was therefore made on the basis that no "rational" government could come to the decision to enter into the Heads of Agreement, especially having regard to the catastrophic environmental degradation that could occur.

Mr Smith continued: "In addition, it was submitted that Cabinet, through the National Economic Council could not divest ministers, parliament, or other statutory bodies of the powers vested in them by law.

"It was submitted that there was complete failure to properly consult and indeed, that the Prime Minister's office deliberately sought to discourage public consultation prior to final approval and that this was unlawful," he said.

The Guana Cay Association also seeks an order of mandamus, directing the government to conduct the process of full and proper public consultation prior to the granting or issuing of any leases, approvals, permits, rights, concessions, exemptions or grants.