The Tribune

WE have no intention of discussing Canadian Bruno Rufa’s case now before the courts — that’s a matter for the courts. However, we are concerned about Mr Rufa being denied the inalienable right of every person in a democracy to defend himself when accused. Mr Rufa is being denied that right by the Bahamas Immigration Department.

We are even more concerned by the statement of Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell early last year that the Bahamas government “maintains the position that it has the absolute discretion in law to say who can and cannot land in The Bahamas.” And, of course, Mr Rufa can’t land even though the court has given him a date to appear before it and his lawyer’s letters notifying Immigration of this fact have gone unanswered.

Once again, we have a clash between the executive branch of government and the judicial – the guardian of our constitution, the protector of our democratic rights.

This to-ing and fro-ing in the Rufa case has been going on since 2015 when Mr Rufa, a condo-owner at Coral Beach Condominium for 17 years in Freeport, was accused in Magistrate’s Court of engaging in gainful occupation without an Immigration permit. He denied the allegations and was released on a $2,500 bail bond. On November 20, 2015, Immigration gave Mr Rufa permission to land and remain in The Bahamas for 150 days until April 20, 2016. Mr Rufa’s 150-day stay was quickly cancelled when he was informed by the Assistant Director of Immigration that he had only seven days in which to wrap up his affairs and leave the Bahamas. Naturally, Mr Rufa appealed bringing a case against Immigration Director William Pratt. However, everyone knows that Mr Pratt did not give such orders on his own initiative. It is obvious he was taking instructions from his Minister — Fred Mitchell, who has made it clear that Immigration “has the absolute discretion in law to say who can and cannot land in The Bahamas.” In other words, the courts be damned.

Supreme Court Justice Petra Hanna Weekes, in her ruling on Immigration’s treatment of Mr Rufa, found that considering his long residence in The Bahamas, “his investment as a property owner, his duties and responsibilities as the president and a director of the Condominium management company and the fact that seven days given him to leave, a day and a half before the Christmas holiday, was unreasonable.” She thought that 14 days would have been a more reasonable period. She ruled that the Immigration’s orders for Mr Rufa to wind up his affairs in seven days and leave The Bahamas be set aside and that the Immigration Department reconsider what would be a reasonable time for him to conclude his business and leave.

Mr Rufa filed a second judicial review against government. In October 2015 the Supreme Court’s judgment declared that Mr Rufa’s expulsion from The Bahamas in February that year was unlawful. It ruled that Immigration and its officers be restrained from “deporting, expelling, escorting, seeing out, or causing the applicant, to be removed from The Bahamas until the court’s judgment on April 4, 2016 or until further order of the court.”

Here we are now into 2017 and Mr Rufa’s lawyers are still fighting Immigration to force them to obey a court order.

“This is disgraceful behaviour (of the Immigration Department) and it brings the reputation of The Bahamas into international disrepute,” said Fred Smith, QC. “A person is entitled to attend court for his trial and hearings, and Mr Rufa is being denied his constitutional right to a fair hearing because the government is refusing to allow him into the country.”

On Friday, Mr Carey Leonard of Callenders & Co law firm, which represents Mr Rufa, informed Deputy Chief Magistrate Debbye Ferguson in the court in Freeport that Mr Rufa was not in her court because he had not received permission from the Immigration Department to enter The Bahamas. He, therefore, requested that the case against Mr. Rufa be dismissed, because — despite the court orders — government had refused his entry into The Bahamas. He pointed out that Mr Rufa had attended all court dates since his trial started in 2015 until he was denied further entry.

Mr Rufa’s lawyers have filed a motion for a constitutional hearing in the Supreme Court for disclosure from the Immigration Department on their refusal to provide his lawyers with the contents of the immigration file relating to the criminal charge against him. The hearing is set for June 14 and 15.

Deputy Chief Magistrate Ferguson said that as a date has been set for a constitutional hearing, she would not dismiss Mr Rufa’s magistrate’s court case, but would extend his bail. She again advised the Attorney General’s office that “if they can find out if there is a difficulty, what the difficulty is, or give proper advice to the Department of Immigration in terms of their conduct, if it is suspicious about your client, to exercise caution”.

Bahamians might not be interested in Mr Rufa or his case, but they certainly should be very concerned about the principles underlying the case – the fight between Immigration and the courts for supremacy while your constitutional rights to be heard as citizens, including non-Bahamian residents, are being snuffed out.

Never forget Pastor Martin Niemoller’s last words in a Nazi concentration camp:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out ­— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Bahamians, it is time to speak out, before it is your turn and there is no one left to speak for you.