The Tribune

FOREIGN Affairs and Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell released a statement yesterday in response to suggestions by DNA Leader Branville McCartney that his home was politically targeted for a check by immigration officers.

Last week, Mr McCartney told The Tribune he had yet to receive an explanation from the department on why three officers inspected his premises and then later denied they entered his yard.

He said the officers barged their way onto his property in a disrespectful manner about three weeks ago, and threatened to use their weapons when warned about his guard dogs, presumably looking for illegal workers.

However, Mr Mitchell said he has been informed that officers, acting on information, carried out a status check in the area of Munnings Road on the July 30.

“They discovered a man who appeared to be a non-national outside a yard in that area, who, when he saw them withdrew into the yard,” Mr Mitchell said. “They spoke to him and he produced documents to show he had legal status. They asked if they could enter the yard and were given permission by him to do so. In the yard, they carried out other checks and some of those individuals were lawfully in The Bahamas. They noted, however, at the rear of the yard that some others had taken flight in adjoining properties after being warned by others working in the yard. When they questioned three others, the officers discovered that they did not have documents to be in The Bahamas. They were subsequently detained at the Carmichael Detention Centre and have since been repatriated to their home country.

“The officers did not know whose property they were in until a call was received from Branville McCartney protesting the checks and claiming that the property was his. What was explained to him by the public officials during that call is now being given to the public. No more no less. He is therefore making a mountain out of a molehill.”

Mr Mitchell said he was not told of the specific road check beforehand or afterwards, nor during the questioning or detention of those arrested.

“The matter was routine. Mr McCartney was not a person of interest in the matter as I understand it and he certainly, nor his party or his political opinions are of specific personal interest to me as it relates to immigration enforcement. I am advised, the officers entered with the authority of the individual who appeared to be an agent of the property owner and therefore had ostensible authority to allow them on to the property. If that was the case, there was no need in the law, regulations or policies to ask for my sign off or permission, and I was certainly not involved at all until now. Even if that were not the case, no law, policy or regulation requires my sign off on an immigration check. Any suggestion of a political motive or act on my part is therefore a figment of his imagination, foolish, ill-advised and spurious.”

Last week, Mr McCartney, the former minister of state for immigration, said he goes through the proper channels when he hires non-nationals to work for him or his businesses.

“Why would they come to my house, knowing that if I have persons working for me, that I have made applications to the Immigration Department and I got necessary approvals or disapprovals? It seems to be political,” he said last week.