The Tribune

BY his own admission, Keith Bell’s actions in conferring citizenship to a woman and two children at the funeral of her husband were unorthodox.

The news emerged after an audio recording was made of the unusual ceremony within a ceremony.

Mr Bell was attending the funeral of Frack Racine, a Haitian man who came to The Bahamas in the 1990s. While there, he administered the oath of citizenship to Mr Racine’s wife and his two children. Mrs Racine was born in Haiti, the two children were born in The Bahamas.

According to Mr Bell, it’s all above board. He says Cabinet approved the citizenship request, and Mr Bell swore to Mr Racine as he was in hospital that he would swear in Mrs Racine in her husband’s presence. That came at the funeral.

And so we got the spectacle – and the recording – of what should be a solemn undertaking to the country taking place amid cheers from onlookers and during an entirely separate ceremony.

It was administered by a minister rather than an officer – and while it might be touching in some ways, how many other applicants get the personal attention of the minister? How many get to call him directly as happened in this case with a personal call from Mr Racine to Mr Bell?

Brent Symonette, who knows the role very well as a predecessor of Mr Bell in that office, says Mr Bell should resign.

Mr Symonette points out that swearing-in events routinely take place in a designated room at the Hawkins Hill office with no press. He says it is usually carried out by a senior officer, either the director or their deputy. And the exceptions are for being carried out in official venues in Family Islands, such as the court in Abaco or the immigration office in Freeport.

To do such a ceremony at the sidelines of a funeral, Mr Symonette calls “highly irregular”.

He stopped short of saying it was illegal – though that certainly merits investigation.

But he made clear that this appears to have been done for personal or political purposes.

So can anyone get this treatment? Or is this just available to those who have Mr Bell’s phone number?

There is a poignant side to this tale, bringing a resolution to a dying man’s wish. But many such applciations have a poignant side.

The Tribune has heard over the years of many people seeking to have citizenship approved. Some have given up waiting and taken their lives and their careers abroad, to the loss of our nation.

What made this case more special than theirs? Will Mr Bell make his phone number available to people in those cases? Will he bring their cases to Cabinet to give them resolution too?

That this is a most unusual incident is clear. What is unclear is why Mr Bell felt the need to make such a remarkable exception in this case, not just in the granting of the citizenship but in the means of doing so.

Citizenship is not just a trinket to be handed out as a favour. It is not something that can be used for personal or political leverage. It is not something that should be given out to make a minister look good to those he is bestowing it upon. It is an aspiration in and of itself. It is something that should be held up for its importance to our nation, and those who wish to call themselves part of it.

In saying that he was bestowing citizenship on behalf of the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, Mr Bell also places the onus on them to say whether or not they approve of Mr Bell’s method of doing so.

He also said he was doing so on behalf of “Bahamians everywhere”. There are more than a few who would question that.

Citizenship is important. People have fought for the right to be a citizen. People are still fighting for the right for citizenship to be passed along to their children in cases where inequality reigns. It must not be cheapened. And someone who is seen to be cheapening it for their own gain is not fit to be minister.