The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

The Department of Immigration took a poor view of my position in my letter of January 17 titled “Rufa case hurts our nation”, accusing me of making assertions that are “materially incorrect and without foundation” and of outlining a history in the case that is simply “wrong” as it relates to how it has treated Canadian citizen and long-time Freeport resident, Bruno Rufa.

In my letter, I said that it appears that the department has been hassling Rufa and is seemingly hell bent on excluding him from the country without reason. Yes, he’s been charged with a crime, but has he been convicted? No, the matter is ongoing.

And so their behaviour, “scooping up” second home owner, Rufa, earlier this year and giving him minutes to leave (as Justice Petra Hanna Weekes put it) and no chance to hear on what grounds, is something that should concern all Bahamians as it is contrary to what is necessary to advance our economy and society.

In response, the department claimed in their own letter that “at no time did the department act in an arbitrary or capricious manner with regard to (Rufa)” and that at “all times” they “sought to act according to the law”.

Unfortunately, the well-documented actions of the immigration department suggest otherwise and the findings of Justice Petra Hanna Weekes ultimately confirmed otherwise. Which is why I wrote my letter.

Though invoking the “fundamental” right of the immigration department to exclude people from The Bahamas can evoke passionate responses among the population, it is not enough. Neither is claiming that you “sought to act in accordance with the law” sufficient to prove that claims of harassment are “factually incorrect”. Such exclusion must in fact be done properly.

The only way that the Department can prove it has not acted arbitrarily and capriciously (their words, not mine) towards Rufa when they sought to deport and exclude him is if they present the evidence – which Weekes’ ruling has found was lacking – as to why they have acted the way they are towards Rufa. Otherwise all we have is a man who was charged with a crime, treated as if he was presumed guilty of that crime, and deported without so much as a word about why. This, to me, and to the judge who undertook a judicial review of the controversial matter, would appear to be the definition of “arbitrary”.

Afterwards, when trying to simply remain in the country to attend court hearings on the charge against him of working outside of the scope of his permit, he was continually denied extensions to his stay to do so. This was despite clear requests from the judge, and arguments from his legal team, that he be allowed to attend. That to me seems like the definition of “capricious” and an example of nothing more than harassment.

It also wastes the court’s time, as adjournments had to be made because he wasn’t allowed back into the country to attend (Weekes too, said that requiring Rufa to seek “special permission” to re-enter the country for his hearings was “unfair” and “unreasonable”). The timing of his exclusion and Weekes’ comments are all matters of record so I don’t see what is “factually incorrect” about my statement in this respect.

Again, if there is some evidence-based reasoning that the Department of Immigration is making its decisions with respect to Rufa based on then why have they not brought it into the light? If they did, perhaps this whole question or “arbitrary” and “capricious” could possibly be avoided. As could the negative findings from the judge herself.

As previously stated, the reason why all of this concerns me - and should do other Bahamians - is twofold: we see a critical agency of our government going rogue - acting outside of the law and then criticising agents of the law when they are restrained. Secondly, because news about second home owners being randomly deported without any reason given as to why provides no reassurance for people considering The Bahamas as a place to live and invest.

Simple assurances in the response to my letter from the Department of Immigration and claims that the “minister of immigration (Fred Mitchell) supports the decisions taken in the matter as correct in law” do nothing to mend the situation. In fact, this just makes it all the more concerning.

The department seems to be increasingly confused by the idea that we don’t live in a society where just saying something makes it true - that Rufa is an “undesirable” or that they did not act “arbitrarily or capriciously”. You must have evidence. And this is the crux of the problem.

JUDSON DEMERITTE

January 20, 2016