The Tribune

YESTERDAY, members of the public kept us busy by phone and e-mail asking how the two Cubans, being actively sought by Immigration because, according to Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell they were considered a “security risk”, could possibly be with their families in the US, each with a job and one with a driver’s licence. Hadn’t Mr Mitchell informed the public that the US had refused to accept them because of their questionable record?

Had Minister Mitchell misrepresented the situation or had The Tribune been misinformed?

We assured them that The Tribune’s information was correct. As for Mr Mitchell he would have to answer for himself. From where did he get his information? Has he misled the country? If so why? Mr Mitchell claimed that the two men, who were released from prison last month after a judge found that they had been illegally held for the past three years, might be returned to prison if caught. However, during all those three years of imprisonment they were neither charged with or tried for any crime, neither, according to the court, was there any evidence to prove that what was being alleged against them was true. But Mr Mitchell persisted in his claims.

“We consider them a security risk,” he told a recent press conference held at the Immigration department after their release. “It is clear if you examine their record, I believe one of the individuals was deported from this country twice, another was found trying to smuggle people into the United States off Andros and the two of them were causing incitement in the Detention Centre and trying to burn the place down.

“That’s the reason they were sent to prison so that they will be in a more secure facility and the narrative is clear that we attempted, because they were not wanted back in the United States and not wanted in Cuba their home country and no third country that we knew of, and that we approached, wanted to take them. They were simply being held there until that matter could be settled.”

Even an unwitting Prime Minister Christie was dragged into the web of conspiracy. Last week, he told the House that the government “was caught between a rock and a hard place” as it petitioned several countries to accept the men during their imprisonment.

These countries, he said, included the United States, Cuba, Panama and Sweden. If this is true, then it is Mr Mitchell’s duty to present the exchange of correspondence to support these claims for the public to see – especially the letters of rejection and the reasons for the rejection.

According to Mr Mitchell, one of the two men was considered particularly dangerous because he had had military training. Although, it could have been true that he had military training, this was not unusual as military training is compulsory for both sexes in Cuba. However, neither of them had had this training, which suggests that they both had left Cuba before the age of 17. In Cuba, two years of military service, between the ages of 17 and 28 years, is compulsory.

We were told that the United Nations High Commission for Refugees had refused to interview them because of their criminal record, only to discover that there was no truth to that report. They had been denied an interview because they had not requested refugee status, and so did not qualify for an interview. If this is so, where is Mr Mitchell’s proof otherwise?

So far, no one can find a criminal record for either man. It is true that they were in the country illegally and could have easily been deported without any fuss. However, as far as a criminal record is concerned, one on them had a ticket for driving under the influence of alcohol — and that happened many years ago. Is this what all the fuss is about? How many young men haven’t had a ticket at some time in their youth? Does this label him as a criminal? Incidentally, now that he is back with his family in Florida, Mr Pupo Mendoza has a driver’s licence and is working in construction.

The two men — we still do not know how they left The Bahamas on February 27 – said they fled because they feared for their lives after Mr Mitchell had announced to the country that they were a “national security risk”.

What we will never understand — and which needs a lot of explaining — is how Mr Mitchell could have recommended last year that each of them should be given an asylum seekers certificate and released into the community. Such a certificate would have protected them from being re-arrested. However, after the court found there was no evidence of any wrongdoing and released them, he now claims that they are “national security risks” and vows to ask for an investigation 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”. How could any prosecutor have objected to them being returned to the community – especially without “cogent evidence” – when it was Mr Mitchell in his cabinet memorandum who had recommended their release with a certificate of protection against further arrest?

Mr Mitchell’s behaviour is troubling to say the least. Even a good explanation cannot justify such strange behaviour.

In a letter to The Tribune last month, retired Justice Jeanne Thompson expressed how appalled she was that “this attorney-at-law and self-professed human rights activist has the temerity to attempt to flout the rule of law and begin an assault against the independence of the judiciary”.

By his various pronouncements, Mr Mitchell seems to want to make the Immigration Department under his command the last word on the movement of people, not only within these islands, but to and from The Bahamas. If he gives his approval, you stay, if not you go. Apparently, if he had his way there would be no recourse to the courts of justice.

Thank goodness in this case the court still had its independence and could overrule him. Justice was done – no thanks to Mr Mitchell.

Bahamians should demand that Mr Mitchell bring proof to support his claims against these two men and also justify his objection of how the court handled the matter — especially in view of the cabinet memorandum.

However, regardless of how this case is explained, Mr Mitchell’s display of such an unreasonable, dictatorial nature, should disqualify him as Minister of Immigration. People’s lives cannot be entrusted to anyone who makes such unreasonable decisions.