THE SCENE in the House of Assembly yesterday was disgraceful.

Immigration Minister Fred Mitchell, who is also Foreign Minister, displayed for all to see his petulant, vindicative nature. During the course of the angry repartee many parliamentary traditions were shredded, including the court’s sacred sub judice rule.

Whenever mention of a case before the courts is raised in parliament, the Speaker quickly shuts down debate reminding the offending member that the case is sub judice – in other words no reference can be made to it as long as it is under judicial consideration. It did not seem to matter that Canadian Bruno Rufa’s case is being heard in court today.

But Mr Mitchell, in his report to the House yesterday, could not resist taking a jab at FNM chairman Michael Pintard by accusing him of defending Mr Rufa. Not only should no reference have been made to the Rufa case, but in pointing an accusing finger at Mr Pintard for defending Mr Rufa’s human rights, Minister Mitchell was breaking another House rule — never criticise a person outside of the House who cannot defend themselves on the floor. But, of course, as we know Mr Mitchell behaves as though he makes the rules.

In the Rufa case, Justice Petra Hanna Weekes had ruled on October 29 last year that the Canadian’s arrest and subsequent deportation earlier that year “amounted to a breach of the rules of natural justice” and were in violation of the law.

As was expected, Mr Mitchell objected to the ruling. He saw it as a “challenge to the authority of immigration”. In this dangerous opinion, he claims that the Department of Immigration has an “unfettered right to determine who is landed and is excluded from The Bahamas, subject to law.” He failed to say what law it was subject to, but obviously it was not subject to the law under which the judge had made her decision.

However, the next few weeks should be interesting as Mr Mitchell unravels for the public the mystery of the case of the two Cubans who were released by the Supreme Court after being unlawfully detained for almost three years. Mr Mitchell claims that they are “national security risks” and says he will ask for an investigation into “how a court was persuaded that two people that the government believes with cogent evidence are a security risk, were released into the general population of The Bahamas”.

This was a most incredible statement in view of a Cabinet memo sent by Mr Mitchell three months earlier suggesting that Cabinet should approve the men’s release on parole into the community.

Despite his tirade in the House yesterday, it is still not clear why after declaring them security risks, he had earlier recommended that they not only be paroled but given asylum seeker certificates. He now wants to know if someone “stole” a cabinet paper. However, there is still no explanation as to why they are now considered “national security risks.”

Even their lawyer, Mr Fred Smith, QC, wants the answer to that sudden revelation. Of course, Mr Smith was not spared the sharp edge of Mr Mitchell’s acid tongue. Mr Mitchell wants this Bahamian lawyer to disappear into the hills of Haiti, where Mr Mitchell claims he belongs.

What is not recognised is that Mr Smith’s roots are buried far deeper in Bahamian soil than Mr Mitchell’s. Mr Smith is the only Bahamian who, on his father’s side, can trace his lineage back to an original Cherokee Indian who was one of the few to survive the Spanish purge after Columbus discovered these islands in 1492. The lines of the remainder of the family go back to 1648 a year after King Charles 1 of England in the 23rd year of his reign granted to the company of Adventurers for plantation and cultivation the island of Eleuthera and “all the surrounding islands known as The Bahamas”.

So yesterday in the House, Mr Mitchell wasted time spouting a lot of hot air about sending Mr Mitchell back to Haiti where he happened to be born of a Bahamian father and a Jordanian mother. They eventually returned home to the Bahamas after “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his Tonton Macoute got control of Haiti. Mr Smith was eight years old at the time.

But to get back to the Cubans who are suddenly labelled “security risks”. Even their lawyer, Fred Smith, has been taken by surprise. In all the time that he has been researching their case no one has mentioned anything about them being security risks. Asked if this were true: “How would I know – this is the first I am hearing it,” he exclaimed yesterday.

Mr Smith said that when he took over the case as a habeas corpus matter— a writ whereby those imprisoned can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment — there was no mention about them being dangerous.

Mr Smith’s case was that they had been unlawfully detained in prison – now euphemistically called the Department of Correctional Services – for three years without any charges being brought against them. Before that, they were at the Carmichael Road Detention Centre. Mr Smith said in February 2015 he made several visits to the prison to put his case together. The case was filed on January 2, 2016. He served the Attorney General’s office with the relevant paper work and the trial date was set for February 10, 2016. At the request of the Attorney General’s Office, the case was adjourned to February 18. Between February 10 and 18, there was no communication from the Attorney General’s office either with the court or Mr Smith that they were security risks. As a result when the judge ruled that they should be released, there was no objection from the Attorney for the Crown.

Now suddenly under parliamentary privilege their case is tried with no judicial rules to protect their rights. Despite, the Prime Minister’s attempt to lay out the case, no one still knows why they are security risks. Mr Christie, himself knows that this is not justice.

However, we are being asked to take Mr Mitchell’s word for it. These “risks” should have been examined in a court of law, not in the House of Parliament.

We are treading on very dangerous territory when the legislature interferes with the judiciary. Remember 367 years ago a King of England lost his head, followed by the “Glorious Revolution” when the matter was settled that from henceforth British sovereigns were restricted to that of constitutional monarchs with limited executive authority. No interference with parliament.

However, yesterday our parliament overstepped its bounds when it interfered in a judicial matter. The question now is: Why did Mr Mitchell’s department not submit their information to the courts? Having failed to do so how can he now suggest that he is going to ask for an investigation into “how a court was persuaded that two people that the government believes with cogent evidence are a security risk, were released into the general population of The Bahamas”?