The Tribune

By ADRIAN GIBSON

ajbahama@hotmail.com

Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration Fred Mitchell has been demonstrating arrogant petulance, a disregard for divergent views and a penchant for attacking the messenger. As one who holds high public office, Mr Mitchell’s dismissive utterances, failure to acknowledge errors in judgment or missteps, misconceived sense of perfection and seemingly overly sensitive approach to governance leaves much to be desired.

It appears that Mr Mitchell never comprehensively addresses issues, instead choosing to adopt a jejune, fatuous and/or ill-conceived approach that either seeks to personalise a response; obfuscate in an attempt to fool listeners/readers; hang on to a particular issue or point raised that muddies the water so much so that the more substantive matters fall away or are lost in the media cycle; to deny without explanation or issue a non-denial denial; or, in my opinion, to use politically-savvy fancy talk that would either insult our collective intelligence or fluster.

No less a person than former Pindling-era Immigration minister Loftus Roker recently stated that persons in positions of power - no doubt including Mr Mitchell - seem to be more concerned with defending themselves, more so than correcting issues that could “blemish” the Bahamas’ image on the international stage.

There are three particular matters concerning Mr Mitchell’s conduct at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) that ought to be raised.

Reply to Mitchell’s statements concerning my last column

Last week, I wrote about the tragic death of Christopher Prescott Adderley (Scottie), a 34-year-old Bahamian pilot who died in a Haitian prison in October 2015. In the wake of that column, his mother has also spoken out.

Mr Mitchell claimed in a press release last week that I only used selective emails in that column. That is untrue. Every email between Mr Mitchell and Scottie’s mother - Sharon Rosemary Adderley - I was privy to. And, with her permission, I published and/or referenced each and every one.

In October, the MOFA issued a press release following Scottie’s death without having spoken to his mother and relaying condolences. I called his mother and read the release to her. She cried. One of her greatest issues was that no one called her and gave her sympathies. They instead attempted to express their so-called condolences via the press.

I then inquired about the person who was handling the matter in Nassau and I called her. I inquired about how they could issue a notice to the media and be so heartless and detached as to express “condolences” to her in a publicised announcement of her son’s death rather than personally. I left Rosemary’s number and I was told that she then received a call from that MOFA official.

I stated last week that Scottie’s mother - along with the father of Hughie Gray, who was incarcerated at the same time in Haiti but who returned to The Bahamas - sent monies via the MOFA to Haiti to pay lawyers’ fees and bribes. I stand by that and the family stands with me. The monies were sent and a Bahamian official requested and issued the bribe funds to a Haitian official known as the Commissaire (name withheld). Any monies for Scottie were sent via Western Union to a friendly prison guard or friends that Scottie had made while flying commercially as a pilot to Haiti. Today, we publish the cheques - sent via the MOFA - and an excerpt of a Whatsapp conversation between Mrs Adderley and that official.

Speaking in Grand Bahama on Friday, Mr Mitchell said: “I want to say in the front of the Bahamian public that is false. We have no evidence of such a thing and the assertion by Adrian Gibson in The Tribune is irresponsible, it is false, and it is misleading, and it is important for us to defend the integrity of our institution.”

He accused me of using the opportunity “for political brownie points” at the expense of a family who is grieving the loss of their loved one.

Mr Mitchell also explained that often when Bahamians find themselves indigent overseas they ask the Ministry to facilitate monies being passed from their families to them.

“That is all we know, I am advised on this matter. I am advised no one in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was complicit in or knowledgeable of bribe money paid to anybody in Haiti, and that it is a completely irresponsible statement for that individual to make in a daily newspaper,” the minister said.

Firstly, I misled no one, spoke truth and the family totally supported everything I said. Furthermore, if Mr Mitchell did his research, he would have discovered that these persons are also my relatives and, moreover, Rosemary is my former teacher from grades seven to 12.

His claim that I was intending to score political brownie points is hogwash as I am not a politician and could score no political brownie points by sharing the truth about a relative’s death, with the expressed permission of his grieving mother who wanted to expose Mr Mitchell’s failing and dismissive approach to her and who continues to await the results of a much promised investigation.

What is irresponsible is the fact that, rather than do his job and get answers for this grieving family, Mr Mitchell seeks to issue vacuous and intemperate press releases. Please ...

As I said last week ... “The Bahamas’ MOFA could learn a lot from the US State Department, particularly relating to the treatment and assistance of its citizens who are incarcerated in foreign jurisdictions. Where was the effort to ensure that these Bahamians were afforded due process under Haitian laws? Why were their conditions not more closely monitored? Why were they not in contact with prison officials to ensure that these men were treated according to internationally accepted standards of human rights?”

Being Minister of Foreign Affairs and Immigration should be more than free trips across the globe on a diplomatic passport. And, certainly it should be more than the sabre rattling we see on the immigration front.

The incarceration of Cubans Lazaro Seara Marin and Carlos Pupo Mendoza

On November 12, 2015, I highlighted the plight of Cubans Lazaro Marin and Carlos Pupo who were incarcerated at the Bahamas Department of Corrections without charge for three years. Recently, I was a part of a legal team that secured their release on a writ of habeas corpus.

One day after I wrote that column, the Department of Immigration (DOI) - which falls in the ambit of Mr Mitchell’s ministry - issued a statement saying, in part, that: “It has been determined that prima facie they do not have a claim for asylum in The Bahamas. To our knowledge, they have not in fact asserted such a claim.”

Last Monday, I revealed the Minister of Immigration and Foreign Affairs, who claimed that the two Cubans who had been detained unlawfully for nearly three years and released by the Supreme Court two weeks ago were “national security risks”, had sought Cabinet approval for their release on parole into the Bahamian population just three months earlier.

My column was published on November 12, 2015. The DOI released the aforementioned statement that day or the day after. And, Mr Mitchell prepared a Cabinet memo, dated November 13, 2015, inviting his Cabinet colleagues to “authorise the release of the two men with an Asylum Certificate or otherwise”. We saw the Cabinet paper.

The Foreign Minister requested the Cabinet’s support in ascertaining the release of Mr Marin and Mr Mendoza into the general population with the issuance of an Asylum Seeker Certificate to each of the men.

He said: “8. It is in the view that colleagues are being asked to support the position as it may arise from time to time to identify long-detained migrants in detention in the Bahamas who satisfy security criteria to be paroled into the general population where repatriation or 3rd country settlement continues to be extant and/or barred.”

“9. It is therefore recommended by officials that Mr Marin and Mr Mendoza be released into the general population with the issuance to each of an Asylum Seeker Certificate in order to prevent their re-arrest.”

Now, Mr Mitchell refers to these men as “national security risks”. Considering the inconsistencies, Fred Mitchell appears to be a ministerial flip-flopper. No doubt, he appears to be attempting to cover his political backside.

Mitchell’s comments about the judiciary or matters before the court

Of late, Mr Mitchell has made various comments about court rulings and/or court processes that could be perceived as overstepping boundaries and overreaching into territory that breaches the constitutional separation of powers. Recently, he has “asked for an investigation then into how a court was persuaded that two people that the government believes with cogent evidence are a security risk, were released into the general population of The Bahamas”. Here, he was referring to the two Cubans who were released on a writ of habeas corpus by Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs.

Prior to that, Mr Mitchell announced in Parliament that Jean-Mary Justilien - a Haitian man shot in Eleuthera by police and immmigration officers and acquitted of an illegal entry charge - was deported though he had two pending matters against the government that were before the Supreme Court. The Office of the Attorney General was served and press statements would have made all and sundry aware of those matters. Yet, with extant matters before the court, Mr Justilien was deported and Mr Mitchell announced his deportation in the House of Assembly.

And then there is the judicial review case of Widlyne Melidor, in which Mr Mitchell left his ministerial perch and, via his ministry, released a dismissive statement that Justice Rhonda Bain’s ruling that the government must disclose all of it relevant documents relating to its immigration policy would be appealed in what seems to be an attempt to keep such information secret.

Last Friday, Mr Mitchell - in what can only be interpreted as a put down of the court - said: “It has always been assumed and it is still our view that the Immigration Department has the sole discretion as to who can land and who can’t land as a visitor. Now we have a situation where it appears the court is substituting its judgment for the Department of Immigration, so this is becoming a point of some contention, and I think the Office of the Attorney General is acting on our behalf to have the matter clarified.”

That said, I draw Mr Mitchell’s attention to Rule Nine of the Bahamas Bar (Code of Professional Conduct) Regulations which speaks to the conduct of attorneys (such as himself) whilst holding public office.

Furthermore, all attorneys - including Mr Mitchell - ought to know that scandalising the Court is any act done or writing published calculated to bring a Court or judge of the Court into contempt or to lower his authority.

In Regina v Ortland Bodie [2012] 2 BHS J No. 67, Mr Bodie was brought before the Supreme Court for comments made during his talk show “Real Talk Live”. During a show on June 21, 2012, Mr Bodie made the following comments with respect to Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs:

“I notice the other day, I was reading the newspaper and I say well blow me down. A Mr Justice Stephen Isaacs, a very good friend of mine, I would not say how good a friend, because he don’t want me to talk his business, but if he challenge me, I will talk it. Mr Justice Stephen Isaacs told a gentleman, not a gentleman, an alleged murderer, that his case would be heard next October, when this alleged murderer allegedly committed the offence over a year ago. Now three (3) years will go before he is brought before the courts. What sort of cock-eyed nonsense is that?”

Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs had this to say:

“And Mr Bodie expressed it quite articulately. You have invited ridicule of the Administration of Justice, at its very core, the Seat of Justice. Judges do not make public comment. I cannot answer Mr Bodie. But Judges do carry with them the power to commit to prison for contempt in its face. The present Chief Justice, just recently, found it necessary to address the Nation and to admonish all to be mindful of the roles that Judges play, and to be careful not to belittle the Court in the public’s eye, after some ill-advised comments were made and directed towards judges presiding over criminal cases.”

He went on to say: “As Sir Burton Hall said, in the case referred to above, the Extradition of Keva and Dwight Major: ‘The Jurisdiction of the Court in contempt proceedings is not to protect the sensibilities of a particular judge or the judiciary as a whole. It exists to preserve public confidence in the existence of an independent and impartial judiciary. And when public confidence fails, the foundation of society and social order fails.’

“And, of course, as I said earlier, fair comment is perfectly acceptable. Criticism of the Judge is perfectly acceptable. And when I say ‘Criticism of the Judge’ I’m not talking about personal character attacks and name calling. That will land you here, in the circumstances that Mr Bodie finds himself. You can criticise a judgment. You can comment on a judgment. You can write your own judgment and publish it as a Letter to the Editor. That is not offensive. That gives the Judge an opportunity to see through the eyes of someone else.

I consider the offence, in this case, as I said from the very beginning, egregious. Particularly because it was committed by a person, who was a lawyer when I was called to the Bar 30 years ago. It was broadcast to the whole world,” the Senior Justice said.

Court of Appeal President Anita Allen as recently as January 29, criticised the media and certain critics for launching “serious and possibly contemptuous” allegations against the courts. This came after an article was published which suggested that the Judiciary was to blame for the crime problem.

Notably, President Allen stated: “Indeed, the judiciary seems to become everybody’s dart board. Whenever it is uncomfortable to look in the mirror throw a dart at the board, and immediately be absolved of responsibility”.

No doubt Mr Mitchell’s press release (which immediately followed Justice Isaacs’ ruling) stating that he was launching an “investigation” into how the court could come to such a decision after all the cogent evidence presented by the Crown, appeared to be an attempt to absolve himself of any responsibility.

I leave Mr Mitchell with the words of former Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett in a 2014 speech at the opening of the legal year in which he cautioned the government on the “dictatorial impression” it had created when it announced the plan to have ten criminal courts running at the same time.

At that time, he urged that “it is imperative that they do not undermine public confidence in the judiciary by language and statements that leave this impression”.

Comments to

ajbahama@hotmail.com