The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge has strongly condemned a Jamaican consular officer who, while also acting as the lawyer for a Jamaican man facing deportation, allegedly advised him not to sign a document authorities needed to remove him from The Bahamas.

Justice Joyann Ferguson issued the rebuke in a ruling dismissing Fitzroy Edwards’ bid to be released from immigration detention and blocking his removal from The Bahamas.

Edwards, a Jamaican national married to a Bahamian citizen, has been detained since August after pleading guilty to overstaying. Immigration authorities are seeking to deport him while an application for a Resident Spouse Permit remains pending.

But Justice Ferguson devoted a postscript to what she described as troubling circumstances surrounding efforts to obtain travel documents needed to remove Edwards from The Bahamas.

During the proceedings, the court was told that Edwards declined to sign a document required to facilitate his removal and attributed that refusal to instructions allegedly given by his attorney, who was also identified as a Jamaican consular officer.

The attorney was not before the court to respond to the allegation, and the defendants did not refute it. Justice Ferguson therefore made no finding on whether such instructions were actually given.

However, she said the circumstances raised serious concerns because the functions of an attorney advising a client and a consular officer are separate and should remain so.

“Such circumstances are also relevant in assessing whether any delay is properly attributable to a lack of reasonable diligence and expedition on the part of the Defendants,” Justice Ferguson said. “Further, this action may potentially compromise diplomatic relations.”

She said the alleged conduct and apparent conflation of the consular officer’s role with that of Edwards’ counsel was “egregious and wholly inappropriate”.

“Such a conflict of roles should not be countenanced,” Justice Ferguson said. “The Court strongly condemns this conduct and makes it unequivocally clear that it must not be repeated.”

The unusually sharp rebuke came after Justice Ferguson rejected Edwards’ argument that his continued detention was unlawful.

Edwards was arrested on August 8 for overstaying, pleaded guilty and was fined by the Magistrates Court. After paying the fine, he was handed over to the Department of Immigration for processing under the Immigration Act.

He was served with a deportation order on August 9 but refused to sign it, according to evidence from Superintendent Carnie Gibson. Immigration officials also relied on a detention order as the legal basis for holding him while arrangements were made for his removal.

Edwards sought a writ of habeas corpus and interim injunctive relief preventing Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell and Immigration Director Stephen Laroda from removing, deporting or repatriating him while his immigration application remained outstanding.

His case was that he had lived in The Bahamas for a considerable period, was married to a Bahamian citizen and had been trying since about 2022 to regularise his status. His wife argued that removing him before his application was decided would substantially prejudice those efforts.

Justice Ferguson found, however, that paying the fine imposed for overstaying ended Edwards’ criminal punishment but did not prevent Immigration authorities from detaining him under separate statutory powers for the purpose of deportation.

She found there was evidence of a deportation order and detention order dated August 9 and that authorities had been trying to obtain the travel documents needed to facilitate his removal.

The judge said she was satisfied there was a significant intention to deport Edwards and was not satisfied that his detention so far had exceeded what could reasonably be considered necessary to remove him from The Bahamas.

There was also insufficient evidence to conclude that there was no realistic prospect of deportation within a reasonable period, she found.

However, Justice Ferguson stressed that the existence of a deportation order does not give the government an indefinite power to detain someone.

She said continued detention could become unlawful if there ceased to be a realistic prospect of deportation within a reasonable period or authorities failed to act with reasonable diligence and expedition.

Justice Ferguson also rejected the argument that Edwards’ pending Resident Spouse Permit application entitled him to remain in The Bahamas while it was being considered.

She said the Immigration Act allows the spouse of a Bahamian citizen to apply for such a permit, but the decision is ultimately within the Immigration Board’s discretion.

A pending application, she found, does not itself amount to the granting of a permit or confer lawful immigration status while a decision is awaited.

Justice Ferguson consequently dismissed Edwards’ application for release and refused the injunction seeking to prevent his removal.

Her order does not prevent the Immigration Board or another competent authority from considering and determining his pending Resident Spouse Permit application, and Edwards remains free to return to court if circumstances materially change so that his continued detention becomes unlawful.

The judgment was dated September 15.