The Tribune

By LEANDRA ROLLE

Tribune Chief Reporter

lrolle@tribunemedia.net

THE Progressive Liberal Party has removed a controversial clause from the Smuggling of Migrants Bill that would have protected smuggled migrants from certain types of prosecution.

The clause would have protected them from prosecution for illegal entry, illegal stay or possessing fraudulent documents if those actions were directly caused by being smuggled.

The bill passed the House of Assembly after the governing party retreated from this provision, which critics said would have weakened immigration enforcement.

National Security Minister Wayne Munroe, who led debate on the bill, acknowledged concerns about the clause and spent much of his contribution outlining the bill’s structure while responding to opposition criticism.

The proposal became a flashpoint in recent days, with the Coalition of Independents staging a demonstration last week and accusing the government of introducing what they described as an “asylum” or “security” bill. Yesterday morning, a small group of Free National Movement supporters also gathered outside Parliament to protest before learning the section would be removed.

Mr Munroe emphasised that the clause did not seek to override existing laws and would only have blocked prosecutions under this specific Act.

“We've heard the outcry, this is a responsive government,” he said.

He said concerns stemmed from a belief migrants were being granted rights they should not have, but argued that comparable protections already exist under current law.

Prime Minister Philip Davis, during his contribution, said the amendment was being made to remove any ambiguity. He stressed that the bill had never intended to create a new legal pathway for undocumented migrants to remain in The Bahamas. He framed the legislation as one targeting smugglers, not migrants, and noted that current laws address migrants separately.

“The issue with the migrant and the smuggler is that if you charge both of them under the Act, could you tell me how we could get a conviction if they’re both charged under the Act,” he said. “You need them to be your witness to establish your case.”

Addressing non-refoulement, Mr Davis said it ensures migrants are not deported to places where they face serious harm.

“This is nothing new – this is a moral and legal obligation that our law enforcement officials already follow – by deporting Haitians, for example, to locations outside of Port au Prince,” he said.

He said asylum procedures remain unchanged, calling claims to the contrary scare tactics. He argued that the bill pursues multiple aims: targeting organised smuggling networks, imposing long prison terms and heavy fines, and expanding enforcement tools.

“To any Bahamian who believes it is harmless to rent out rooms to people not here legally, to provide vehicles for their movement, or to lend a boat for a weekend trip that you know, in your heart, is illegal, I say this is a turning point,” Mr Davis said.

“What might have felt like a side income will now carry consequences that can change your life. To migrants themselves, I say: do not place your lives, or the lives of your children, in the hands of criminals,” he said.

Mr Davis said his administration is tackling immigration challenges from multiple fronts, pointing to “record-high” repatriations, record lows in landfalls and detention centre occupancy, and unprecedented action on shantytowns.

FNM leader Michael Pintard called the government’s reversal on the immunity clause “interesting,” expressing doubt that it was an oversight. He urged the government to “kill the bill.”

“So, having been caught as they normally are caught, Madame Speaker, then they make adjustments, dry eye and not again, with any full-throated apology and repentance,” he said.

Mr Pintard said the opposition’s issue is not with criminalising smugglers but with the bill’s failure to address the actions of those who pay or facilitate smuggling.

“We say when you pay the smuggler who is to be criminalised, you are seeking to again, circumvent the laws of this country, and you too are subject to punishment,” he said.

“I ask you a question just in terms of simple math: which is the majority? The smuggler who's organising it, or those that come on the vessel. Which one is the majority.”

He said the legislation is open to multiple interpretations and argued it would have been more effective had the government conducted an audit of existing immigration laws first.

Concerns also emerged regarding the treatment of smuggled migrants. The bill ensures they receive basic amenities, including food, clothing, shelter, documentation and urgent medical care. Critics say facilities are already overstretched.

“One thing we cannot legislate is generosity and we cannot legislate generosity that we cannot afford,” Iram Lewis told Parliament. “We cannot place a burden on the Bahamian taxpayers to solve an international crisis when our own social safety net have holes.”

Mr Munroe concluded by noting the bill was tabled months ago and the opposition had full access to it, yet their first formal communication came just yesterday morning.

He said it was unfortunate that their approach seemed like “testing which way the wind is blowing.”