The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Bahamas will “sink into recession” if the Immigration Department continues to “kick out” foreign investors and property owners on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations made against them, an outspoken QC warned yesterday.

Fred Smith QC, the Callenders & Co attorney and partner, told Tribune Business that foreign investors and second home owners should be “feeling more secure” following the Supreme Court verdict he obtained on behalf of his client, Bruno Rufa.

Justice Petra Hanna-Weekes, in a December 14 ruling, found that Mr Rufa, a Canadian citizen and Board president at Freeport’s Coral Beach Management Company, was deported unlawfully by the Immigration Department on February 18 this year.

She declared that the Immigration Department’s actions were “a breach of the rules of natural justice”, because Mr Rufa, a Freeport property owner who has lived in the Bahamas for 15 years, was never informed of the allegations against him or given an opportunity to respond to them.

Justice Hanna-Weekes also implied that the reasons cited by the Immigration Department as grounds for his deportation were weak and vague, with no evidence offered to support them.

Describing the Bahamian court system as “a beacon of light” that continues to act as a check on illegal Government actions, Mr Smith told Tribune Business that the Immigration Department’s actions in Mr Rufa’s case threatened to cause “insecurity and anxiety” among the foreign investor community.

He added, though, that the Supreme Court verdict should provide much-needed reassurance to foreign developers and home owners that they would not be “scooped up in the night” and thrown out when spurious claims were made against them.

Suggesting that a repeat of the ‘Rufa incident’ could threaten the Bahamas’ multi-million dollar foreign investment and second home markets, Mr Smith said Justice Hanna-Weekes had effectively reinforced investor rights and protections.

“The foreign business community should rest assured that if they own property in the Bahamas, they have investments in business in the Bahamas, then the courts will uphold their legitimate expectation of being able to enjoy the fruits of their labours and investments,” Mr Smith told Tribune Business.

“The Immigration Department is not a law unto themselves. The Immigration Department is not the supreme commander of the Bahamas.”

Mr Smith was quick to emphasise that neither the courts, nor human rights groups, were telling the Immigration Department not to obey or enforce the law.

Rather, they were saying the Department needed to “follow the law” in its enforcement activities.

Mr Smith argued that what had happened to Mr Rufa was inconsistent with Prime Minister Perry Christie’s numerous investment trips and meetings, and threatened to undermine them.

“This is a new day for the Bahamas,” the Callenders & Co partner told Tribune Business. “The Prime Minister is going to China and London to meet with investors, bring in investment and developments such as Albany.”

Referring to Fred Mitchell, minister of foreign affairs and immigration, Mr Smith added: “How does he think it makes people who own $10 million, $20 million, $30 million homes think when the Department of Immigration can pick them up and scoop them away at night?

“The Minister of Immigration, who is also the Minister of Foreign Affairs, should be touting the victory of Mr Rufa as an exemplar to investors of who protected they are in operating in the Bahamas.

“We have a huge second home market in the Bahamas, multi-million dollar homes for investors from Canada, Latin America, Europe and the United States. These people need to feel a sense of security, not insecurity.”

Recalling the departure of thousands of foreign investors and workers from Freeport following Sir Lynden Pindling’s ‘bend or be broken’ speech, Mr Smith implied similar would happen if Immigration treated other investors similar to how it had dealt with Mr Rufa.

“If the Minister [Mr Mitchell] thinks promoting the concept of kicking people out on the basis of complaints being made against them is acceptable, then the rest of the Bahamas is going to sink into the same of recession that Freeport is suffering,” Mr Smith told Tribune Business.

“People will feel insecure and anxious. They won’t invest any more. They’ll sell and get out, just as the 40,000 foreign licensees did in Freeport in the 1970s, leaving a ghost town overnight.”

Recalling Mr Mitchell’s veiled suggestion that Baha Mar developer, Sarkis Izmirlian, should have his permanent residency status revoked, and Shane Gibson’s suggestion that investors undergo psychological testing, Mr Smith urged Government ministers to “temper their emotions”.

“Immigration has acted outside the law for so long because people are afraid to challenge them,” he added.

Mr Rufa was awaiting court proceedings, and a trial, on allegations that he was working illegally at the Coral Beach’s bar and grill facility when he was deported.

Jerome Hutcheson III, a senior Immigration officer, alleged in affidavit evidence presented to the Supreme Court that Mr Rufa was removed from the Bahamas “partly as a security measure” and also because “of perceived risks of interference” with the work permit matter.

Justice Hanna-Weekes, though, said the Immigration Department never disclosed the ‘reports’ that underpinned this rationale, or who was making the complaints to it.

She added that there was no evidence that ‘national security’ issues were at stake, and said of Mr Rufa: “He was never advised of the complaints against him and given an opportunity to address them.”

While agreeing that non-Bahamian citizens who were not permanent residents did not have an automatic right to remain in the Bahamas, Justice Hanna-Weekes added: “What I do not accept is that the Immigration authorities can automatically ‘scoop up’ a subject of the state, legally landed in the country, and escort them out of the country without more.”

“There is no evidence that he is suffering from any mental disorder or defect; or that he was engaged in some immoral activity; he has not been convicted of any offence criminal or otherwise; up to the point of his departure he was not put on the stop list; up to the time of his departure he was not the subject of a deportation order; and according to the respondent had not been deemed an undesirable by the Immigration Board,” Justice Hanna-Weekes said.

“To be arrested without reasonable suspicion, taken into custody, not informed of the reasons for the arrest, not allowed an opportunity to refute allegations, if any, made against him taken under heavy guard to his residence and given a very short time to pack a bag and board a flight out of the country, are actions by the Immigration authorities which amount to a breach of the rules of natural justice.”