|
INTERVENTION
THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
ON VISA ISSUANCE
By The Honourable Fred Mitchell
Minister of Foreign Affairs & The Public Service
30th November 2005
Mr. Speaker, I rise on the
adjournment to address what I consider to be a matter of public
importance and a matter which touches and concerns my integrity.
I have stated several times in this House that I do not have to
ask the permission of any one to defend my integrity.
The charges raised originally on 5th September and
most recently on 22nd November by a Senator of the Free
National Movement rise to the level of an attack on my character and
performance as Minister of the Government.
I cannot let them go unanswered.
I have in my view answered them
sufficiently while I traveled with the Prime Minister in Malta.
I now do so face to face with the Bahamian people.
I repeat what I said when the allegations were first raised.
On the 6th of September, a detailed and specific
statement was issued, which said “that if the FNM has information
about improprieties, then their course is clear: they either report the
specific allegations of impropriety to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
for further investigation, or take their allegations directly to the
Police along with their evidence.”
Contrary to what one unfortunate
newspaper pundit has written, I did not duck the issue.
I asked on three occasions, the last of which was at my party’s
convention for the spokesman for the side Opposite to carry whatever
evidence they have about alleged impropriety at the Consular Division of
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the police.
Since they failed to do so, I instructed the Permanent Secretary
to invite the police to carry out an investigation into the allegations
made by the spokesman for the side Opposite, and to determine at the
same time how they came to be in possession of documents which appear to
be stolen from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The results of any investigation will be reported to the public.
Quite incredibly Mr. Speaker two
major newspapers in the country have written editorials, uncritical of
the allegations of the side Opposite, fully embracing their arguments,
and dismissing any concern about the fact that the documents may have
been stolen from the Ministry. The
comment about stolen documents was certainly not meant to intimidate
anyone. The fact is that
Ministers must have confidence in the fidelity and work of the public
officials, and the advice they discharge, and what is exchanged between
them. If it were otherwise,
it would erode the very fabric of the development of public policy.
From the other side, the public must have confidence that
information which they disclose on a confidential basis is in fact
confidential. When someone
discloses information on visa forms for example, it sometimes includes
the most intimate details about one’s life, family and financial
circumstances, which if used carelessly could have adverse effects on
the individual applicant. How
would the side Opposite expect the outside world to have confidence in
our systems, if it turns out that whatever is disclosed on a
confidential basis is open willy nilly to all and any comers, with our
newspapers excusing it on the grounds that the end justifies the means.
I do not agree with that, and I do not believe the Bahamian
people would stand for it. This
latest use of stolen documents is added to an earlier time when some
person in a vendetta against a contract officer at the Ministry caused
to be published the entire personnel file of that individual in the
newspapers. Surely the
newspapers would not defend that would they?
It is also for the side opposite
to defend whether or not it was the responsible thing to have done to
disclose the information in the manner in which they did.
Did they for example consider that
sensitive police operations might have been underway, and that their
actions might have jeopardized those police actions in a way that cannot
now be corrected?
Did they not think, that this
Minister; whose word they could always trust, was not sending a warning
signal to them that they ought to take their evidence to the police for
further scrutiny?
Did they not think that there
might have been a cogent reason why the Minister did not say more than
he said each time they raised their allegations?
It appears that they did not, and
they will have to live with the price of that decision on their part.
One of the political pundits
writing in a down market newspaper said that it was clear that I learned
nothing from the CSME debate. Well,
that writer is wrong. I did
learn something from that debate, and it is this: the principle of many
editorial writers in the press often seems ‘never let the truth
interfere with a good story’. Don’t’
bore me with the facts; I have already made up my mind.
Mr. Speaker by further way of
introduction, I wish to say that I learned from my parents this fact;
that no matter what devil, imp or comeback kid is hiding in the daylight
bushes to get you as you start your work at the dawn of the day, you
must press ahead. That means when the rooster crows at 5 a.m., no matter what a
jungle of a day it looks like you swing your two feet out of the bed,
put the left foot forward and then the right and so on until it is time
to take your rest. I
approach all issues in that manner, no more no less, with prayers and
thanksgiving for the strength to do what I have been called to do.
The former Deputy Prime Minister
Sir Clement Maynard used to say that his Mama always told him that you
tell some and then you hold some. Today
I intend to do just that. Tell
some and hold some.
The
police are seized of this matter and their investigations continue as to
various individual names called and will no doubt be soon completed.
I do not wish to prejudice any investigation with regard to those
names until that investigation is complete.
It is my hope that members opposite will cooperate fully with the
police as they seek to finish their work.
I will do nothing here this morning which comments on their work.
This morning I simply seek to answer certain allegations that
were made about me personally and my conduct as a Minister of Her
Majesty’s Government. The
allegations made by the side Opposite are as follows:
1.
That there are visa racketeering schemes operating through the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. I
answer categorically, if there are such schemes, I am not aware of it.
But this is a most serious matter and the Opposition must show
the evidence that they have which demonstrates those contentions.
That allegation is before the police.
2.
That there is – in the words of the side opposite – an
alarming upsurge in visas granted to Haitians and Chinese.
In 2002, they say there was total of over 100 non immigrant visas
issued to Haitian nationals, the last year the FNM governed. By December 2004, they say that number had grown to more than
2000 visas issued every year by the PLP Government through the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs. Mr.
Speaker, it is being suggested that the rise in numbers is dramatic and
that this rise in and of itself is cause for concern.
I do not propose to deal with this matter in any detail because
the information is still being disaggregated at the Ministry but suffice
it to say that there may
well be and probably are innocent
explanations for these figures but that is a matter which requires
further analysis. [The figures themselves as presented by the side Opposite are
inaccurate, and I will present these figures as an annex to this
intervention. I need to say
also that by a report to me on 7th September 2005 item 14
indicates that athletes attending the CAC Games in July 2005 were in
excess of 100 from Haiti. Item 15 points out that athletes participating in Soccer
tournaments in The Bahamas in 2004 and 2005 from Haiti were in excess of
several hundred. As soon as
the figures are properly disaggregated the information will be made
available to the public.
3.
That visas were being issued in bulk based upon the sponsorship
or recommendation of certain politically connected individuals and that
visas were issued without proper identification and photographs; or were
signed by applicants with only an X.
The sum of this allegation however is that there was political
interference in the issuance of visas, mainly that either I specifically
approved visas to individuals who were PLPs or friends of the PLP
including to politicians and their families.
It defies logic how a power vested in a Minister of the
Government, properly exercised, is political interference but I leave
them to defend their logic in this matter. However, their chief spokesman on this matter the now Senator
Carl Bethel, the appointee of their new Leader the Member for North
Abaco produced at his press conference on 20th November two
pieces of evidence which he says support his contention.
It is this third issue which touches and concerns my conduct and
I wish to speak to it today.
One piece of evidence was a copy
of an e mail communication dated Thursday 6th May 2004 from
me to the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Dr.
Patricia Rodgers. Here is
what the spokesman Carl Bethel had to say about this e mail and I quote:
“The Minister forwarded the e mail to the Permanent Secretary under
the heading ‘Re: Your Approval’ and she duly approved the issuance
of visas on the 11th May 2004.
Please see the initials, dates and stamp of the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs on the document”.
With the greatest of respect Mr.
Speaker that is not what the document shows at all.
The Senator misled the Bahamian public, and the press who have
jumped on his bandwagon could have seen for themselves that what he said
was absolutely incorrect, false and misleading.
I propose to lay a copy of the e mail on the table of this House
for the perusal of members. In
my view once the first piece of evidence lacked credibility, due to the
actions of the purveyor of the evidence, then all other evidence became
suspect.
The e mail comes from Senator
Traver Whylly who is an assistant in the office of Prime Minister.
In it he asks for the assistance for one Bruce Bain whose
complaint was that he was not getting approval for visas for seamen on
his boat. I e mailed the
Senator the next day Thursday 6th May 2004 to say “I will
look into the matter”. This
was no promise of anything other than to have the matter investigated.
It is what any Minster should do with regard to a compliant from
any citizen. On that same
day and the e mail discloses this on the face of the record, I e mailed
the Permanent Secretary Dr. Rodgers with the words: “For your
advice”. It is true that
the subject is ‘Your Approval’ but when you examine the e mail, it
shows quite clearly that the subject ‘Your Approval’ was not one
which I typed in but one which was in the original e mail by the
original sender of the e mail. So
if Carl Bethel is arguing that the action is some how a direction to the
Permanent Secretary, it is clear that this is not so and so his case
falls flat and collapses on that score.
My message to the Permanent Secretary was simply this “For your
advice, [signed] Fred Mitchell”.
I never saw or heard from the matter again until the e mail
showed up in the possession of Senator Carl Bethel with the words
“Approved for issue” and initialed by the Permanent Secretary on the
11th May 2005. I
did not issue any such direction. The
matter was handled entirely by the public service.
The second piece of evidence that
Senator Carl Bethel released was a ledger purporting to show that I
issued visas to five Chinese on 13th February 2005 at the
sponsorship and behest of a Member of Parliament.
In the column of a ledger that was produced, under the column
‘APPROVED BY’ it says “Minister”. In other words, it claims the
visas were issued by my instruction.
The ‘Reasons’ column indicates some words which appear to say
“advised by an individual and as instructed by a named individual.”
Now what is curious about this is
that no paper trail like the e mail above was produced by Senator Carl
Bethel. There is a reason
for that. And the reason
for that is that there is none. I
defy anyone to produce any record that is evidence or indicates that I
instructed the visa section of the Ministry to issue visas to these
persons. It is always my
position that if visas can be lawfully issued then the person should be
facilitated, and being a Member of Parliament does not deny you the
right to the issuance of visas provided you fall within the rules.
The right of expectation of a Member of Parliament is identical
to the right of expectation of a citizen of The Bahamas.
This has not and I will never engage in preferential treatment of
any citizen over another.
I indicated at the Convention that
there are issues of training that need to be addressed and this is one
such occasion. But for this
purpose, I defy anyone to produce the paper work.
I operate by paper work. I
have no agents who work on my behalf as Minister.
If I give an instruction that instruction is writing.
I go further Mr. Speaker and say
that even if I had given a direction to issue the visas provided I acted
within my discretion and the law there is absolutely nothing wrong with
the exercise of that discretion. This
view that because politicians exercise political power there is somehow
something wrong with it, it is simply misguided.
It cannot stand the gravity of logic or the light of day.
I go one step further, if, and I
say if, a Minister of Foreign Affairs under the PLP ordered visas issued
at the behest of politicians what then is the explanation and argument
of the side opposite with regard to the following:
You remember the name Bruce Bain.
This is the sea captain who asked for the assistance of Senator
Traver Whylly and whose visa issues were resolved by the Permanent
Secretary. We did some
research and discovered that Mr. Bain was introduced to the Ministry by
letter dated 13th September 2001 by no less a person than the
then Deputy Prime Minister Frank Watson.
I lay on the table the letter of Mr. Watson and I read it into
the record. The letter is
addressed to Janet Bostwick, my predecessor in office as Minister of
Foreign Affairs and an FNM politician, not a PLP one.
Mr. Watson asked in identical terms to Senator Whylly’s note
that visas be granted to Mr. Bain.
The then Permanent Secretary actioned the matter on 24th
October 2001 and the visas were duly issued.
I draw no adverse conclusion here.
Mr. Bain is entitled if he is a legitimate businessman to
complain to Mr. Watson who was the Deputy Prime Minister and he got his
issue resolved. Does Mr.
Bethel think that Frank Watson did something wrong on that occasion?
Did Janet Bostwick do something wrong; did she wrongly exercise
her discretion?
What about this one, Mr. Speaker?
Rome Italia Johnson was your predecessor in office as Speaker.
On the 15th March 1999, she wrote to the then
Permanent Secretary Luther Smith and recommended the approval of visas
for thee Haitians. I lay a copy of the letter on the table and I read it into
the record. It was signed
by Hon. R. Italia Johnson, Madam Speaker, Honourable House of Assembly
on House of Assembly stationery no less.
It is clear that she is an FNM politician.
On 26th April 1999, Craig Powell, a Vice Consul in
Haiti at the time wrote to confirm that the visas were granted for the
persons who she requested. Does
Senator Carl Bethel agree that this is political interference?
On the face of it, the Speaker is entitled if she wished to ask
for or to complain to the Ministry about particular matters.
Why is that act political interference?
Was this cronyism on the part of the FNM?
Finally, I would wish to ask
Senator Carl Bethel if he remembers a piece of correspondence dated 4th
March 2002 which was written on the Constituency Office Stationery of
Holy Cross Constituency, Nassau, The Bahamas and signed by him as M.P.
It is written on behalf of a constituent. I do not think it is necessary to call the name of the
constituent and will not. I
will refresh his memory as I read it into the record and I will lay it
on the table. The man is a
constituent of Mr. Bethel and Mr. Bethel in a letter to his colleague
then Foreign Affairs Minister Janet Bostwick asks in the final paragraph
“… I write to request that you cause the attached applications to be
reviewed and if possible grant 6 months entry visas which would reduce
the administrative burdens and delays that afflict the constituent.”
Mr. Speaker, the visas were duly
granted to six Haitian crew men. The
approval appears to bear the initials of Janet Bostwick or JB.
The letter was written to her.
She approved it on 8th March 2002. The PS at the time asked for a clarification on the matter
about how long the visas should be for, should they be multiple entry?
Again JB writes” P.S. “3 months multiple entry”.
It appears that on 26th March 2002, the PS went
further and granted them for six months multiple entry, the exact
request then MP Bethel made. So
is that now political interference and cronyism?
Mr. Speaker, I again defy anyone
to find my legitimate signature in a similar manner to this piece of
paper that I have now with the signature of my predecessor on the face
of any of the documents connected with this matter, where I approved the
issue of visas. Visas are
granted on behalf of the Minister, but it is the public service process
with rules laid down to try to avoid people coming to The Bahamas who
will be a public charge.
I know the side Opposite does not
want to hear this but our economy is more dynamic than it was in their
time so the number of requests will be more, and this is also the case
where the embassy in Haiti is now closed or opened intermittently, and
in the case of China there is a growing demand for Chinese businessmen
to visit our country. The
evidence we have is that the numbers have not quadrupled for Chinese
visitors as was alleged by Senator Carl Bethel.
The numbers I have been provided with are annexed to this
document.
The policies that were left in
place by the FNM are still the basis of the policies that are followed
to day. There are some
exceptions as we struggle to deal with the swirl of rumours and stories
about the Consular Section and to try to put visa issuance on a
transparent basis for the public. This
administration put in place a security clearance officer for the first
time, there is routine security clearance before visas are issued.
Sometimes things may fall between the cracks but there is for the
first time a system in place. It
is certainly not where I would like it to be but changes have been
implemented. That security
clearance officer has been helpful in seeking to put security issues on
a more transparent basis.
Further, a clear direction was
issued by me on 28th February 2005 that no middle men or
brokers should be used to obtain visas on behalf of other persons, and
that if you were applying for visas particularly for China; you had to
do so in China through the British embassy.
We hope that will change early next year with the opening of our
own Embassy in Beijing. I have made it clear that no matter who it is, friend or foe;
if they do not qualify, then reject the application. The officers must follow the law.
The third change brought in by
this Administration is that the Minister is isolated from the decision
making processes on visas. That
is a major change from the position of my predecessors.
That is one reason why we have the
public service structured in the way that we do.
It keeps the records and tries to carry out open and transparent
polices. In small countries
like this people come up to Ministers all the time and complain about
visas and passports. The
Minister must receive their complaints and have them investigated.
That is what I do as matter of routine.
But you will see through correspondence after correspondence in
the Ministry my assertion that they will get assistance if it can be
lawfully done. That means
meeting the objective criteria and with all the due diligence done.
Each public servant has to stand on his or her own two feet with
regard to the decisions they make on visas.
I wish to assure the House that
the Chairman of the Public Service Commission has now completed his
report on the division. I am studying the recommendations.
I am in receipt of the Auditor General’s report and it appears
to me that having regard to what has been disclosed by Senator Bethel
that much of his analysis comes from the Auditor General's report.
There may have been faults in the
system but as at November 2004 in particular, whatever was uncovered by
me the instructions were given to straighten up and shape up.
That is why it is so important also to put the issuance of visas
on a statutory and regulatory basis.
No such statute or regulations exist.
It is important that we tackle this issue with the widest
possible consultation. With
the coming of machine readable passports and an electronic visa issuing
system next year there should be substantial improvements in that
direction.
I have also approached the
Commonwealth Secretary General with regard to identifying an expert from
the Commonwealth Fund For Technical Co-operation (CFTC) to assist in the
reorganisation of the Consular Division.
The members Opposite should be
anxious to help in protecting the country’s reputation not shooting
off half cocked giving the impression of a country whose documents are
insecure. This is all the more so when I saw the Member for Montagu,
the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs in the graveyard at the
funeral for the late Leader of the Opposition Mr. Cyril Tynes two
Saturdays ago. He said
nothing about it, yet he was at a press conference the next day with
this tendentious information.
Mr. Speaker, there is much more I
could say about visas but I will not.
I have chosen to deal with Haitians in particular since I am
satisfied that that nationality was chosen because the spokesman for the
side opposite knew that the response would invite prejudice to surface,
rather than elucidate policy. We
have a patriotic duty to work together to solve this country’s long
standing problem of illegal immigration but legitimate commerce should
not be stifled because we have a problem with illegal immigration.
The U.S. does not shut its borders to legitimate Mexican traffic
because there are illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico.
What we must do then is work to stop illegal immigration and the
Government is working through our Minister of Immigration to do so.
At this point, I go no further.
I believe that there will be a comeback on this matter by the
side Opposite, so I have saved some for later.
That is all I have to say at this juncture and it relates only to
my conduct as a Minister. The Senator has not provided us with the names on which he
bases his allegations. We
are in the process of disaggregating the data with regard to the other
allegations, and will report further to the House.
But again I say let the chips fall where they may.
As for me, I will continue to discharge the functions charged to
me by this Prime Minister who led us from the valley of despair in 2002
to where we now are. I say
forward ever, backward never.
-- end
--
Annex
attached
INTERVENTION
THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
ON VISA ISSUANCE
By The Honourable Fred Mitchell
Minister of Foreign Affairs & The Public Service
30th November 2005
ANNEX
VISA ISSUANCE RECORDS
(PRELIMINARY)
Haitians Issued in Haiti
2001
875
2002
723
2003
860
2004
607
2005
552
Issued in Nassau to Haitians
2001
33
2002
101
2003
558
2004
1951
2005
2088 (1st
September)
Totals for Haitians
2001
908
2002
824
2003
1419
2004
2558
2005
2640 (up 1st
September)
Chinese
2002
86
2003
188
2004
136
2005
98
(up 1st September)
|
