The Tribune

IMMIGRATION was in the Prime Minister’s sights yesterday – though his target was not always clear.

First, the straightforward – PM Dr Hubert Minnis wants to clamp down on the employment of illegal migrants. No work permit, no job. Encouragingly, the focus is not just on the issue of the worker but also on the employer. Clamping down on the worker without a permit can mean the employer just goes and finds another illegal worker – it doesn’t mean a Bahamian gets a job.

That is of course something the government should be doing already – after all, employers who pay out for work permits legally are being undercut by competitors who don’t play by the rules. If one employer is gaining an advantage by breaking the rules, that’s not fair on the law-abiding business.

Unfortunately, some of Dr Minnis’ other points were a little rambling – or a little out of touch. His talk of a “strike force” to “aggressively pursue illegals” sounds destined for court battles. After all, “aggressive” pursuit must still be legal, and tempered by due process.

Dr Minnis also returned to the plan mooted last month by Director of Labour John Pinder to revoke work permits if employers fail to appoint and properly train apprentices. He complained of “investors, bankers, etc, who bring individuals to our shores on contracts for three, four years with the commitment that they will train Bahamians to take over such jobs. In six years they are still here, eight years they are still here, nine years they are planning for residency, displacing Bahamians”.

At the time of Mr Pinder’s comments, we wrote that the threat was a blunt instrument and called for a dialogue between the government and the business community. Alas, Chamber of Commerce director Peter Goudie said he had tried to arrange a meeting with Minister of Labour Dion Foulkes on two occasions but to no avail. As Mr Goudie said: “We have never heard a word from them on this subject.”

Former immigration minister Branville McCartney noted last year that such a plan is “good in theory, but very onerous in practice”, pointing at the difficulty to find qualified local pharmacists and the heavy costs involved in hiring a foreign worker and an understudy too. Mr McCartney has walked the walk, having looked at similar plans as minister, but now believes a “case-by-case basis” is more appropriate.

Certainly, the proposal sounds good on the election trail that Dr Minnis is now treading upon. Jobs for Bahamians is an easy thing to shout – and pointing at foreigners who don’t have a vote anyway is an old populist political trick. But what will it achieve? How will it affect domestic workers? What if an understudy moves on?

Things should of course be done the right way – permits should be in place for those who are working and a structure there to get Bahamians into work. But that structure is bigger than just an understudy policy – it involves the education system, finding people willing to take on the role in the first place and more. It also involves talking. Perhaps we should start with that.

Let the courts decide

The allegations against Peter Nygard continue to cause reverberations around the world. The New York Times is the latest to report on the lawsuit filed against Mr Nygard over claims of sexual assault and rape. It also shines a light on what has been a long-running dispute between Mr Nygard and his neighbour, Louis Bacon.

What may be little known to the world at large is no secret to Bahamians – the dispute between the two billionaires has long simmered and been played out at times in legal battles.

Some – such as PLP chairman Fred Mitchell – have suggested this simply boils down to a fight between the two billionaires. Mr Mitchell points to claims of payments made by Mr Bacon for secret recordings of Mr Nygard or to find alleged victims. He also repeats his one-eyed view that no Commission of Inquiry is necessary – as called for by The Tribune – into Mr Nygard’s dealings in The Bahamas including into allegations he paid politicians and police officers, but one is needed into Save The Bays and Fred Smith, QC. If he was truly interested in getting to the truth on all sides, we can’t help but wonder why he wouldn’t want probes into both.

But here’s the truth of matters – we are in a process of claim and counter-claim. A series of allegations have been made against Mr Nygard. The Times also reported on two sisters who claimed they were sexually assaulted but then recanted their claims, and now say they were promised money and coached on their stories.

What was the incentive for these two women to change their stories after they had taken the immense step to make their allegations?

This is what the court process is there for – to hear all sides and determine the truth.

As Fred Smith, who is involved in the litigation, says, the alleged victims “will have their day in court”. That’s as it should be. We should all want to get to the truth – to ease the path to justice in future, and make sure we root out any corruption that is revealed.

God forbid we should dismiss the allegations against Nygard because of a boredom over the endless Nygard-Bacon row. If at the end of this journey, a jury decides there are numerous confirmed allegations against Nygard, how could we sleep peacefully if we had not investigated and reported these matters.

We look forward to the court hearings.