The Tribune

THE succession of claims of irregularities at Immigration under the watch of Minister Keith Bell is continuing to mount up.

Mr Bell, who has promised to answer the accusations against him when he speaks in the House tomorrow, first ran into difficulties over a citizenship ceremony he admits he administered at a funeral for the family members of the man who was being buried.

In the House of Assembly yesterday, former Prime Minister Dr Hubert Minnis dissected Mr Bell’s answers on the subject, raising further questions over that incident. Part of Mr Bell’s response to that will come down to exactly what he has said previously on that issue and whether any of his previous statements do not quite add up to the timeline laid out previously.

Then there is the issue of the Chinese nationals who were released from detention who had been housed at the British Colonial Hilton.

A letter dated January 18 of this year said that an apprehension exercise was carried out on January 17 at about 20.00 hours (8pm). By about 20.59 hours (8.59pm), directives were said to have been received from Mr Bell to have the immigration officers stand down. The letter claimed this request was made by Chester Cooper, who was Acting Prime Minister at the time.

Within an hour of an operation being initiated that evening, Mr Bell had directed it to be discontinued, supposedly at the behest of the leader of the country at the time.

For those of us with experience of dealing with Immigration, getting a response during working hours can be a challenge, so it would seem any complaint went over and above the standard protocols.

Of those detained in that instance, only three had any documents to prove their identity – and it appears all three of those had overstayed their time in this country.

Where the rest of the documents were for the workers is a matter that ought to be answered too – did they have access to their identity and travel documents?

Then there are the other questions raised about immigration issues by the FNM – such as the woman who somehow managed to make a work permit application from the detention centre, get it approved and have the fees waived for the years she allegedly worked without a permit.

Or the reported cases of people getting approvals without an interview, or employers who did not have the financial means to support an employee being given approval.

Then there are the claims of employers without a business licence being granted approvals, or other claims of detainees being released at the order of the minister.

Mr Bell has admitted to some unorthodox actions but reading the litany of allegations, one wonders how often he managed to do things the orthodox way at all.

Of course, allegations have to be proven – and calls have come from both the FNM and the Coalition of Independents for a more substantial investigation.

That should be the bare minimum – with such a range of allegations being made, finding out the truth or otherwise of those claims is of tantamount importance.

For the businesses and individuals doing things by the book, there is a frustration that others can seemingly bypass the proper methods. Is it because – as in the case of the man whose funeral the citizenship ceremony was conducted – they had the minister’s phone number? The appearance that political connections supersede standard process undermines the whole system. Why does everyone else have to wait while the favoured get to the front of the queue – seemingly within an hour in the Hilton case?

Mr Bell’s answers had best be thorough – but a deeper investigation is certainly merited.

We a wait tomorrow’s session at the House with interest.