NASSAU, Bahamas (CMC) — The Grand Bahama Human Rights Association (GBHRA)says it is calling on the Immigration Department to end their efforts to harass and intimidate Canadian citizen Bruno Rufa.

The GBHRA said despite his recent vindication in the courts over claims that he was working illegally in the country, Rufa has continued to be unlawfully targeted and persecuted, and that immigration officers descended on his home this week to question the Canadian and demand that he produce his travel documents.

“The Immigration Department must back off immediately,” said GBHRA President Fred Smith, QC.

“They have no right to target this man, whom the courts have declared innocent of the bogus charges that were brought against him in an effort terrorise and hound him out of the country.

“At 9:40 am on Monday, three officers were once again at his door demanding to see his passport. They suggested that, like a criminal out on bail, he must continually appear at immigration’s offices to seek extensions allowing him to remain in the country. This when they know full well that he has been granted 150 days from November 23, in accordance with the wishes of the Supreme Court of The Bahamas,” Smith emphasised.

Smith said the encounter was but one example of the “bully tactics” that immigration has been using to try and strike fear into Rufa over the past several years; — a strategy that he said, unfortunately, seems to be working.

“Bruno and his partner are now living in fear. They believe officers are just looking for a reason to arrest and detain them on more trumped up charges. It is an awful thing to have to spend the holiday season looking over your shoulder all the time. I think it is safe to say that their Christmas is now ruined.”

Smith said he believes officers are drawing encouragement for this behaviour from the example set by Foreign Affairs and Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell, who earlier this week made a statement to Parliament on the issue.

In his statement, which Mitchell said was in response to the ruling of Justice Petra Hanna-Weeks in the case of Rafa, he told legislators that he is now studying the judgement on a challenge to the authority of immigration.

“I await formal advice. However, my preliminary view is that in the face of such a wide-ranging judgement, with which I respectfully disagree, and if it applies beyond the instant case, we are forced to consider our options where the country and the public interest demands the immediate removal of someone from the country where, in the opinion of the Department of Immigration, the continued presence in the country of that individual may be inconsistent with the peace and good order of the country.”

He promised Parliament that it “may hear more developing on this policy shortly. However, the basic premise seems to be upheld that the Department of Immigration has, in the first instance, an unfettered right to determine who is landed and is excluded from The Bahamas, subject to law”.

Mitchell said that the judgement in this case is the second time in as many months that judges of the Supreme Court have given rulings “which suggest that every case of a landed or “non-landed” migrant to this country requires the rules of natural justice to apply.

“If this situation were to stand as binding law, this would effectively cripple the immigration laws as they have been applied in this country. It would mean that every case of a migrant to this country would be justiciable and possibly challenged in the courts on the basis that there is a legitimate expectation of natural justice.”

He said this particular ruling appears to go further in that it suggests that this even applies to people who seek to enter the country as tourists.

“The public is asked to consider the following scenario, where a tourist is landed by an immigration officer and then shortly after he passes the gate, the immigration officer discovers information which would cause him to cancel the leave.

“The ruling suggests that even though that might arise within the airport’s precincts, there is a legitimate expectation of natural justice and the individual has to be given a right to be heard rather than withdrawing the leave summarily and putting that individual on the plane and out again,” he said.

Mitchell told legislators: “One can imagine the chaos this would cause with regard to the tens of thousands who make no attempt to come here legitimately but breach the borders, and pursuant to these interpretations of the law, would now require a court hearing before they can be removed from the country.

“For the moment, these rulings are interpreted as peculiar to their own facts. However, the rulings are given in such sweeping and all-encompassing language that a careful study has to be made of them to see whether the law needs to be amended to provide the Immigration Department with the necessary authority to deal with matters summarily, with regard to those seeking to land in our country and who though not criminal are adjudged not to be in the general public interest and not good to be landed in The Bahamas or to continue to stay here.”

He said the case involving the Canadian “is particularly egregious, in that the complaints are numerous and consistent about the individual and the individual was put out The Bahamas before because of his behaviour.

“The present ruling will be examined to see how to deal with his particular case going forward. The matter is not at an end, but one must examine whether an appeal is necessary, given the declared position of his counsel that encourages people to fill the courts with legal actions in order to bankrupt the Government.”

But the human rights group said that instead of recommending that the Immigration Department practices be brought into line with the constitution and judicial precedent, the minister “actually had the audacity to suggest the law could be changed to give officers even more arbitrary power. It was a slap in the court’s face”.