The Tribune

By LYNAIRE MUNNINGS

Tribune Staff Reporter

lmunnings@tribunemedia.net

THE Supreme Court has ruled that the Department of Immigration acted unlawfully when it withdrew work permits from two Jamaican nationals without giving them a fair hearing or explaining why.

Justice Carla Card-Stubbs quashed the Department's decision to tell businessman Omar Munroe that work permits for Travor Howell and Alex Garth McNee had "not been approved", even though the men had already received approval letters, paid the required fees and obtained work permit cards.

The judge ordered that the matter be sent back to the Minister of Immigration to be decided again in line with the law. However, she did not order that the work permits be reinstated, saying the court's role was to decide whether the decision was made lawfully, not whether the men should receive work permits.

The case was brought by Mr Munroe, who applied for the work permits on behalf of Mr Howell and Mr McNee. The court heard that Mr Munroe obtained the required labour certificates, submitted the applications and paid the necessary fees. He said he received approval emails on July 24, 2025 and paid $4,000 in permit fees the next day.

Six days later, the department emailed Mr Munroe saying the applications had "not been approved" and told the two men they had 21 days to wrap up their affairs and leave The Bahamas.

The department argued that the approvals and work permits were invalid because the applications had never been considered by the Board of Immigration.

Justice Card-Stubbs rejected that argument, saying the department failed to provide enough evidence to prove the original approvals were unauthorised.

She also found that, despite the wording used by the department, the July 30 letter effectively cancelled work permits that had already been approved.

The judge found that the applicants had a legitimate expectation that their permits would not be taken away without first being told the reasons and being given a chance to respond.

She said the department failed to show that a proper decision-making process had been followed or explain how it decided the original approvals were invalid.

A key issue in the case was the evidence of Chief Immigration Officer Andrew Gittens, who investigated the matter after the dispute arose.

Although Justice Card-Stubbs described Mr Gittens as "an honest and forthright witness", she found that much of his evidence was based on information from other people and was not enough to support the department's case.

She noted that Mr Gittens could not explain how the approval letters were issued, why the later "not approved" letters were sent, or why those letters carried the signature of former Immigration Director William Pratt after he had already left office.

Mr Gittens also accepted that the approval letters appeared to bear Mr Pratt's signature and that the work permit cards produced by the applicants were genuine Department of Immigration cards, although he maintained that Department records showed they had never been issued.

The department also argued that there were mistakes in the applications, that first-time applicants should have been outside The Bahamas when applying, and that Mr Howell and Mr McNee had criminal convictions and immigration issues.

However, the judge found there was no evidence that any of those issues were considered when the Department made its July 30 decision.

She also noted that evidence from the department's own witness, attorney Perry McHardy, showed that Mr Howell and Mr McNee had received absolute discharges in their criminal case, meaning they had no criminal convictions.

Justice Card-Stubbs said public bodies cannot defend a decision by giving new reasons after legal action has already started if those reasons were not considered when the original decision was made.