The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

WE should not be so myopic as to believe the ruling in the case of Mr Jean-Rony Jean Charles only has implications for immigration matters. Instead, we should look to the greater issue which is that none of us are above the rule of law – not even the government, its departments or the civil service.

When the government proceeds to make rules, then break those rules, it undermines confidence held in the individuals holding office and in the office itself. Should it be our own rights that are infringed upon, would we not seek to have an unbiased third party, ie the courts, evaluate the particulars of the case and make a determination as to whether proper protocols were followed that were in keeping with the law?

An article published in The Tribune on February 1, 2018 relayed the contents of a press release made by Mr Fred Mitchell. Within, he conveyed his dismay that the government is complying with the judge’s order and that the Immigration Department is perplexed by this and are very concerned as to what they are supposed to do. Might I suggest something very basic in principle, but apparently rather arduous in execution – and that is that they abide by the law.

Justice Hilton found that Mr Jean Charles was unlawfully detained and unlawfully deported from the country. Two key takeaways were that a person must be charged within 48 hours of detention as per Section 9 of the Immigration Act and Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code Act; and that a deportation order must be in compliance of Section 40 of the Immigration Act which mandates it being signed by the Minister and not the department’s director.

Justice Hilton’s ruling reminded us of another instance where a person was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, that person being Atain Takitota, who was unlawfully imprisoned for eight years between 1992 and 2000. A key finding of the court in that case is that in Mr Takitota’s case, the Court of Appeal held that “Detention or arrest with a view to deportation without being taken before a court is not permissible”. In essence, a person must be charged with an offence, taken before the court, and it is the court that determines whether said person is in breach of the Immigration Act. Only subsequent to the court’s ruling is the Minister to issue a deportation order.

The article included what I believe to have been Mr Mitchell levying a charge of anarchy against Mr Smith. How else are we to interpret his saying that “a group of anarchist … are busy undermining that law”. Recognising that Mr Smith would have utilised the judicial system to interpret the law as is applicable to us all, I fail to understand the way in which he has perpetuated some sort of lawlessness. I posit that it is Mr Mitchell who is the anarchist, believing that the rule of law is selective in its application.

It is regrettable that Mr Mitchell, an officer of the court, would encourage the public to not respect the courts’ judgment and perpetuate the misguided notion that the government and its officers are above reproach and can act as a law unto themselves. Let us all be reminded that “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”. Martin Luther King, Jr.

LLB, BUT NOT AN ATTORNEY

Nassau,

February 5, 2018.