Connect with us

Bahamas News

‘Even Nygard didn’t try that’ – Supreme Court hears massive 400-foot seawall was added to Rosewod Exuma behind the public’s back

Published

on

The Bahamas, September 28, 2026 – A seawall nearly 400 feet long was added to Yntegra’s East Sampson Cay plans after public consultation had closed, the Supreme Court heard today. Fred Smith, KC, told the court it was a structure so large that “even Nygard never tried to do that.”

Mr Smith, appearing for Turtlegrass, said the breakwater for the Rosewood Exuma development’s service dock in North Bay grew to 390 feet long. It would be roughly 40 feet wide and seven or eight feet tall, built into what he called a pristine and environmentally sensitive area. None of this was ever put to the public.

“You have to conceive 400 feet of jetty,” he said to the judge. “Even Nygard never tried to do that.”

Mr Smith was referring to disgraced developer Peter Nygard’s Clifton Bay home, which illegally more than doubled in size, from roughly 2.6 acres to over six. Nygard is presently in prison in Canada having been later sentenced to 11 years in prison for sexual assault charges and is awaiting further charges in the US.

“This is a massive structure. It’s not a little seawall,” Mr Smith said of the breakwater. “It will affect the movement of the currents. It will affect the movement of the sand. It will have a dramatic impact.”

He warned that shifting sand could damage coral and seagrass, and could either starve the neighbouring beaches of sand or leave the water stagnant. That would threaten Over Yonder Cay’s existing business and the beaches on which Turtlegrass depends.

The government argued that changes to a project are a sign that consultation is working, and that requiring a fresh process for every change would be unworkable. Mr Smith called this “a straw man.” Turtlegrass’s case is not that every change requires new consultation, he said, but that these changes were so significant that fairness demanded it.

He said the changes did not emerge from the consultation at all. Turtlegrass had objected to any service dock in North Bay. Moving it further northeast with a longer seawall was “a new proposal with new and worse effects on the North Bay.”

“No consultee asked for a seawall to be relocated and a massively extended one, in length to about 400 feet, in the North Bay,” he said.

He added that a dredging plan the Department of Environmental Planning and Protection (DEPP) requested in May 2025 was “new information on a central issue that had not been available to anyone during consultation.”

Mr Smith told the court the developers had a drawing of a longer dock, dated June 18, 2024, before the first version of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) was published in July 2024. That design was never included in the EIA or shown to the public.

“The developers hid their intention of having a much longer dock,” he said. There was “absolutely no good explanation” for why the drawing existed before consultation but was never disclosed.

Mr Smith also said that when consultation opened in September 2024, the Director had already granted CEC 2400, which covered the service dock. “Both developers and director thought that the CEC for the service dock was in the bag,” he said.

The flushing report and architectural design later submitted for the dock both related to its original location, close to Turtlegrass’s beach.

Then, on January 29, 2025, after consultation had closed, the developers proposed moving the dock almost to the tip of the entrance to North Bay, extending much further into the water. The Director accepted it the next day.

Mr Smith said the documents put before the Director contained multiple, inconsistent breakwater designs, ranging from 100 feet to 247, 290, 390 and 400 feet.

“What did the Director of Environmental Planning and Protection approve by her CEC 2894?” he asked. “Which dock design? Which breakwater design? Which length was approved? Which location was finally approved? Your Lordship will not be able to find an answer to that in the documents.”

He said the Director required no new environmental analysis after the move. She had required a flushing study at the original location but did not ask for one at the new site, nor any study of the bay’s currents. The second version of the EIA simply reused the original modelling, even though the new site had different tides, seabed and coastal conditions.

The only new study was a marine habitat survey based on a single site visit in March 2025, long after consultation closed. Mr Smith said it contained 13 pages of photographs that “established absolutely nothing.”

“They do not come close to amounting to a scientific survey,” he said. The survey did not even identify where the new dock or breakwater would be, let alone assess their effects.

Mr Smith described the developer’s only analysis of an alternative site for the dock, on the south of the island, as “a shocking document.”

The report, prepared by the developer’s consultants, rejected the southern location because it “conflicts with the luxury-focused super yacht berthing program and the residential aesthetics central to the master plan’s high-end appeal.” It concluded that the North Bay site would best preserve Sampson Cay’s “unique identity as a high-end destination.”

“So they’re going to sacrifice the entire North Bay ecosystem for the pleasure of the yachting viewing at the southern tip of East Sampson Cay,” Mr Smith said.

He said the report contained no assessment of environmental impacts, leaving “simply no basis” for the Director to make a rational decision on whether to move the dock.

He added that DEPP had relied on that report instead of commissioning its own experts. “The Braun report was not credible. It is the report of the developer,” he said.

The Director’s affidavit says no further consultation was needed because objections to the relocated dock came “almost singularly” from Turtlegrass. Mr Smith said this was wrong in law. The number of objectors is irrelevant, he argued; what matters is whether the environmental impacts changed, and they had.

He said the duty to consult extended to Over Yonder Cay, everyone who attended the public meeting or made submissions, all users of North Bay, anyone concerned with the environment of the Exumas, and “future generations, expressly required to be considered under the regulations.”

The government argued that Turtlegrass “participated eminently meaningfully” in the process by attending meetings, writing letters and submitting expert reports. Mr Smith said participation does not prove the consultation was adequate.

“A person may participate extensively while still being denied information necessary for fully informed and meaningful participation,” he said.

He noted that the public consultation report was full of complaints from consultees that they lacked information. The developers repeatedly responded that the details would come in the environmental management plan (EMP). Yet the EMP was only published on the developer’s website between July 18 and 22, 2025, after the approval had been granted.

“How is the consultee supposed to know what the effect of a development will be if they do not know what the development proposes to mitigate the effects of?” he asked.

He rejected the argument that “everybody knew” the dock would be in North Bay. “Well, so what?” he said. Knowing it would be somewhere in the bay was not the same as knowing its location, length, design or effects. He noted that counsel for the developer had accepted the EIA did not “clearly set out all the details” of the service dock.

Mr Smith also said the Director failed to publish the relevant documents on her own website, as the regulations require. Instead, she directed consultees to the developer’s website.

He rejected claims that Turtlegrass refused to engage. He said it wrote to the Government at least 10 times between August 2024 and July 2025. The one meeting it did not attend, on December 9, 2024, was proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister, not the Department, and its purpose was never explained. In January 2025, Turtlegrass confirmed in writing that it was willing to meet, but no meeting was arranged. Twelve days later, the dock was moved.

“Turtlegrass, as is OYC, is only interested in having an opportunity to be consulted on a proposed project which includes all of the appropriate and necessary detailed information, so that it can make sensible and informed contributions,” he said. “That is what the law requires. That is what fairness requires.”

“This is a matter of fairness. Full stop.”

Bahamas News

Bahamas Issues Cybersecurity Alert Over Akira Ransomware Threat

Published

on

Nassau, The Bahamas, October 22, 2026 — The National Computer Incident Response Team of The Bahamas (CIRT-BS) has issued a cybersecurity advisory warning businesses, government institutions and other organisations about the growing threat posed by Akira ransomware, a cybercriminal operation capable of stealing sensitive information, disrupting networks and demanding ransom payments.

Active since March 2023, Akira operates through a Ransomware-as-a-Service model, with affiliates exploiting weaknesses in computer networks to gain unauthorised access.

Once inside, attackers can steal confidential data, disable recovery systems and encrypt files, preventing organisations from accessing critical information.

Particularly concerning is Akira’s use of double extortion, threatening to publish stolen information unless victims pay. Some attacks involve data theft without encryption.

The October 22 advisory identifies vulnerabilities involving Cisco and SonicWall firewalls, VPN services, Microsoft Remote Desktop Protocol, Veeam backup systems and outdated Windows and Linux operating systems. VMware ESXi and Nutanix AHV environments are also potential targets.

Attackers may exploit unpatched software, stolen login credentials and inadequately secured remote-access applications, including AnyDesk and RustDesk.

Warning signs include unexpected administrator accounts, unusual remote logins, unauthorised software installations, suspicious backup activity, mass file changes and ransom notes.

CIRT-BS recommends immediate security updates, multifactor authentication, restricted remote access, stronger network monitoring and secure backups maintained separately from operational systems.

Organisations should also remove unnecessary internet exposure of remote desktop services, limit administrative privileges and regularly test backup restoration.

The advisory does not identify any confirmed Akira attack against a Bahamian organisation but highlights vulnerabilities that could expose institutions to serious financial and operational disruption.

Cybersecurity incidents can be reported to CIRT-BS at soc@cirt.bs or through its official website.

Continue Reading

Bahamas News

Energy Minister Delivers Electrifying Keynote Opening Address at CAREC 2026  

Published

on

NASSAU, The Bahamas – The Bahamas’ Minister of Energy, Utilities and Aviation, The Honourable JoBeth Coleby-Davis, delivered an electrifying address during the opening ceremony of the 2026 CARILEC Resilient/Renewable Energy Community (CAREC) Conference and Exhibition, being held October 18–22, 2026, at the British Colonial Hotel in Nassau, The Bahamas.

Under the theme “Empowering Progress: Strategic Policy and Planning for the Energy Transition,” the event draws more than 200 industry leaders, policymakers, regulators, and energy professionals committed to advancing practical strategies for sustainable and reliable Caribbean power systems through renewable energy and emerging technologies.

During her address, titled “The New Energy Era: Transforming Policy into Progress,” Minister Coleby-Davis reminded attendees that The Bahamas’ national motto, “Forward, Upward, Onward, Together,” aptly describes what the region’s energy transition demands.

“Empowering Progress speaks directly to our national motto. Not waiting for progress, but creating the conditions that allow progress to happen. Meaningful progress, however, does not occur by accident. It requires vision, sound policy, strategic planning, strong institutions, and the determination to turn decisions into results,” said Minister Coleby-Davis.

Participants acknowledged that small island developing states share similar pressures, compounded by geographical challenges, small electricity markets, ageing infrastructure, geopolitical influences, and the growing threat of severe weather.

Tasked with ushering in a new energy era across the islands while addressing the challenges posed by The Bahamas’ unique archipelagic composition, Minister Coleby-Davis said, “Every island needs a different answer, but the same logic. As an archipelagic nation, we must provide electricity across many islands, each with its own demand and infrastructure needs. Our strategy, therefore, must be national in direction, but responsive to individual communities.”

Restating her Ministry’s three core messages—that energy is an economic and security priority, technology must be viewed as a tool to support strong institutional leadership, and natural gas should be considered a bridge, not a destination—Minister Coleby-Davis reiterated that “progress must now be reflected in functioning infrastructure, effective institutions, and better electricity services: from policy commitments to coordinated implementation, and from fragmented investment decisions to long-term planning.”

Organised by CARILEC and co-hosted by Bahamas Power and Light (BPL) and Grand Bahama Power Company (GBPC), the annual Conference and Exhibition brings together the Caribbean energy community to advance practical solutions to the region’s most pressing energy challenges and accelerate progress towards more resilient, reliable, and sustainable power systems.

Continue Reading

Bahamas News

Rosewood Exuma: A precedent-setting case for environmental law and future development in The Bahamas  

Published

on

By Eric Carey, ONE Consultants, former Executive Director of the Bahamas National Trust. 

We are facing an extraordinarily important moment in judicial history in The Bahamas as we await a decision on the trial of allegations in the Yntegra group’s Rosewood Exuma project.

As former Minister of the Environment, Romauld Ferreira, put it in the Supreme Court last week: “A lot is at stake…a  great deal of what will be considered in this case sets the stage for what’s to come for future development in the country.”

In the trial of the judicial review of government approvals given to Yntegra for their Rosewood Exuma resort this week, we’ve heard technical arguments about failure to make key environmental documents like Yntegra’s Environmental Impact Assessment and Environmental Management Plan available to the public, failure of key documents to assess some of the most controversial aspects of the project, an unlawful consultation process, and a failure to conduct further consultation following major changes to the development.

Lawyers for Turtlegrass described how there was a “salami slicing” of the project into chunks as a way to circumvent the approvals process and disguise its full impact from public scrutiny. Only certain portions came before the public and key stakeholders like Turtlegrass and Over Yonder Cay for scrutiny, while some of the most controversial aspects did not. This is particularly problematic given what is at stake – the dredging of a beautiful Exuma bay, the North Bay, to transform it into an industrial shipping channel, complete with an enormous seawall, dock, back-of-house facilities and other industrial infrastructure.

It is unfortunate that it has had to come to this – an expensive judicial review process that calls out the government for falling down on its duties to protect the environment and follow the law – but it is important and the broader implications should not be overlooked. When Justice Leif Farquharson rules on this case, he’ll set a precedent that could echo in The Bahamas for years to come, one that answers the question: are the 2019 environmental laws that Ferreira took to parliament after many years of advocacy by environmentalists toothless tigers that are just for decoration – or are they capable of protecting the environment that we all depend on and the rights of those affected by projects to have a genuine say in them?

What is curious is that at the same time as these points are being raised in court as part of the judicial review, we are seeing personal attacks about Bob Coughlin – the person spearheading this legal action and test of environmental laws – by online trolls. Coughlin, an Exuma resident for almost a decade, has long been established as an environmental advocate and a passionate philanthropist – one who has donated almost $4 million to causes in The Bahamas since 2018, including millions to the organisation I once led, the Bahamas National Trust.

For reasons one can only speculate about, these trolls have been trying to make out all sorts of absurd things: that his legal action in support of environmental protection is a petty dispute born out of fears of competition. That Coughlin no longer even wants to pursue his eco-tourism project, when the reality is that he was forced to put it on hold because of the destructive environmental plans that are in dispute. That he is the only one who has an issue with this Rosewood Exuma resort, when in fact, neighbouring resort, Over Yonder Cay – one of the top rated resorts in the Caribbean – as well as the Save Exuma Alliance – consisting of most of the local islands and businesses in the Exuma area, and thousands of petition signers have expressed their concern with the project – over 9,000 to date. Most ironically, they claim, wrongly, that Coughlin received crown land for personal use, when in fact it is Yntegra who received crown land while having no development track record, when Coughlin instead bought his lease on Sampson Cay from a private owner.

The timing of these claims, in the week of the trial, suggest a patronising and cynical attempt to distract from the gravity of the case being heard, what it represents, and how important this decision is. With their simplistic, jingoistic and factually-dubious references to crown land, white foreigners, and the like – it’s not hard to imagine that those involved are engaged in a ploy to push the buttons of Bahamians who they apparently believe can be too easily distracted into ignoring the real issue here: that the government, has – in the words of those in the Supreme Court this week – “run roughshod” over environmental laws with its approvals for Yntegra’s Rosewood Exuma project and that this is truly a landmark case and the decision will have a long-lasting impact on future development. This is at a time when foreign direct investment (FDI) inflows into the Bahamian economy are forecast to increase by as much as two thirds over the next two years, according to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB).

So I call on my fellow Bahamians to stay focused. This is not a story about one man – it is a story about the future we want for our country and whether we are willing to sacrifice our ability to demand environmental accountability in all developments moving forward. There is too much at stake to be thrown off the track by trolls.

As Ferreira says of the judicial review that now awaits Justice Leif Farquharson’s judgement: “This is the first set of litigation, serious litigation, that takes a deep dive into the Environmental Planning and Protection Act and the environmental impact assessment regulations…There’s a lot at stake here.”

Continue Reading

FIND US ON FACEBOOK

TRENDING