The Tribune

By NICO SCAVELLA

Tribune Staff Reporter

nscavella@tribunemedia.net

FNM Chairman Michael Pintard yesterday hit back at Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell for “mischaracterising” him and others in the House of Assembly, calling the Fox Hill MP a “coward” who is afraid to make his comments outside of Parliament “where he is not protected by privilege”.

Mr Pintard suggested that Mr Mitchell, rather than make his statements outside of Parliament and risk facing possible legal action, opted to make inflammatory statements while “hidden behind the protection of the House of Assembly”.

Accusing Mr Mitchell of being a “bully”, Mr Pintard challenged the Fox Hill MP to make the same statements outside of the House of Assembly where parliamentary privilege is nonexistent.

Lawyer Fred Smith, QC, also slammed Mr Mitchell for attempting to “use Parliament as a bully pulpit” to launch “cowardly attacks” on “defenseless private citizens.” He too, challenged Mr Mitchell to repeat the “false and scandalous” allegations made against him without the protection of parliamentary privilege. However, he suggested that Mr Mitchell will not be able to “muster the necessary courage” to do so.

Both men spoke in response to statements made by Mr Mitchell in the House of Assembly yesterday morning regarding Mr Pintard, Mr Smith and a local journalist, who he feels has spread “mischief” and mischaracterised his stance on two recent Supreme Court rulings.

Mr Mitchell said Mr Pintard, Mr Smith and Nassau Guardian Managing Editor Candia Dames are all “entirely discreditable” and all have a “strange personal animus” against him.

Mr Mitchell also accused them of defending “the interests of positions that go against the Bahamas” and supporting “men who put immigration and defence (force) officers and a facility in harms way.”

“I challenge Mr Mitchell to make all of the statements that he made outside of the House of Assembly,” Mr Pintard said yesterday. “I’m very doubtful that he is prepared to make the identical statements outside where he is not protected by privilege.

“Mr Mitchell has demonstrated that he is a bully, and he seeks to bully all persons who see things differently than he does. In classic bully fashion, he is also a coward, and has hidden behind the protection of the House of Assembly.”

In a statement released yesterday, Mr Smith called on Mr Mitchell to “cease abusing his parliamentary privilege by using it to launch cowardly attacks on defenseless citizens.”

“Clearly, if (Mr Mitchell) feels he was attacked outside of Parliament, the appropriate venue for his response is also outside of Parliament,” Mr Smith said. “I invite him, I challenge him - nay, I dare him - to repeat the false and scandalous allegations he made against me without the protection of parliamentary privilege. Sadly though, I somehow get the feeling he will not be able to muster the necessary courage.”

The war of words stems from Mr Mitchell’s public statements on the release of two Cubans from prison, as well as a Supreme Court judge’s ruling last year that Canadian Bruno Rufa was unlawfully deported from the Bahamas.

Last Thursday, a Supreme Court justice ordered that Cubans Lazaro Seara Marin and Carlos Pupo be released from prison after Mr Smith argued that they were unlawfully detained for three years.

That Friday, Mr Mitchell announced that he had launched an investigation into why the court was persuaded to release the men given that, in his view, they posed a national security risk to the country.

However, the Office of the Attorney General did not oppose the application seeking their release during the court proceedings. It was also revealed this week that Mr Mitchell, despite calling the men a national security risk, moved last year to have Cabinet release the men into the general population on parole and give them each an asylum seeker certificate.

Regarding Mr Rufa, Justice Petra Hanna Weekes ruled on October 29, 2015 that the Canadian’s arrest and subsequent deportation earlier that year “amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice” and were in violation of the law.

Mr Mitchell subsequently called the ruling a “challenge to the authority of immigration,” and said if the reasons behind her ruling apply “beyond the instant case” his ministry will be “forced to consider our options.”

After Mr Pintard subsequently said Mr Mitchell’s response to the Rufa ruling was a “clear violation of international norms and a slap in the face of the presiding judge,” Mr Mitchell, in his report to the House of Assembly yesterday, said Mr Pintard was “defending” Mr Rufa.

However, Mr Pintard said yesterday: “...I would say that the painstaking task that Mr Mitchell engaged in to tie the FNM with Mr Rufa amounts in my estimation to Mr Mitchell being tremendously dishonest, and beyond that, it is political mischief that he is unwilling to state outside the House of Assembly.”