By LARRY SMITH

HAVE you noticed how Fred Mitchell appears to fancy himself as a secret service agent? A grim countenance framed by dark shades, he stands as close as possible to whatever VIP is available, ready to spring into action at the slightest whiff of criticism.

Over the years, Mr Mitchell has made a concerted effort to become the ‘bogeyman’ of Bahamian politics. From his early days at the Herald and on ZNS, to his intermediary years as a fanatical protégé of the great chief (Sir Lynden Pindling), to his current role as a demagogue in the style of Donald Trump, Mr Mitchell thinks he is closing in on the ultimate prize of state power.

But a cursory review of his record is more than enough to give any reasonable observer the shakes. For the two terms he has been in charge of foreign affairs in Perry Christie’s chaotic Cabinet, Mr Mitchell has relentlessly sought to create friction rather than to act constructively.

Accusing his critics of treason, issuing sinister threats and hurling personal invective at all and sundry are classic defensive behaviours, but they are hardly the kind of qualities that should be put on public display by our chief diplomat.

Cast your mind back to the 2006 controversy over the callous ten-month detention of two ordinary Cuban dentists at Carmichael Road. Despite having US visas, the Castro government wouldn’t let them emigrate. After leaving clandestinely by boat, they were picked up in Bahamian waters and thrown into jail.

That case involved months of melodramatic stonewalling and escalating rhetoric from Mr Mitchell until an agreement was finally fashioned behind the scenes that sent the hapless dentists to Jamaica, from where they made their way to the US. Mr Mitchell showed no remorse for all the bad publicity and bad feelings he had generated.

In successive reviews over the years, Amnesty International, the UN and the US have all criticised mistreatment and harsh conditions at the Carmichael Road Detention Centre. But the results of official investigations (we know of at least four - in 2004, 2006, 2009 and 2013) have never been made public.

These long-standing complaints are essentially the same charges that were levelled at the current Christie administration a couple of years ago by Cuban-American activists in Miami in support of Cubans held in Nassau. That controversy flared up in March and - thanks to Mr Mitchell - by the summer there were strident calls in Florida for a tourism boycott of The Bahamas.

Rather than seeking to defuse the situation, which could easily have been managed, our foreign minister became increasingly belligerent. Instead of sticking to diplomatic language and making constructive interventions, he exploited the issue as a soapbox to display his nationalist credentials.

Mr Mitchell dismissed all criticism of the Detention Centre - until it was revealed that the government had held its own secret investigation into the beating of detainees by the defence force. And to add to the melodrama, he announced his own “investigation” into the involvement of Cuban migrants in a “criminal” conspiracy to “destabilise the country.” Predictably, we have had no word on the results of that spurious probe.

More recently, Mr Mitchell inserted himself into the government’s ongoing Baha Mar imbroglio - by issuing thinly veiled threats to revoke the developer’s permanent residency status. And this was the country’s most important development project. On the propaganda website not written by Mr Mitchell, the language used was even more explicit.

Due to space limitations, this account barely skims the surface of Mr Mitchell’s track record. But it is clearly inappropriate for a senior government official to engage regularly in such aggressive public behaviour.

There are only two ways to look at this. Either he is grossly incompetent and unable to effectively manage affairs of state, or he creates and worsens controversies for his own self-aggrandisement. Choose your poison.

In late 2014, Mr Mitchell began touting a more muscular immigration policy, which imposed new restrictions on migrant families living here. Application of this policy involved restrictions for children of migrants to enroll in schools, community raids by armed officers, and random traffic stops.

In the course of events, two unarmed Haitians were shot by security forces, and one of them died. (Police have said that the man who was fatally shot was a suspect that ran from officers and evaded arrest.)

The latest controversy features two Cubans who were imprisoned for almost three years without charge. They were freed by the Supreme Court after human rights lawyer Fred Smith filed a habeas corpus petition. Mr Mitchell immediately swung into action, snarling that he would “investigate” the court’s decision and condemning the men as “national security risks”.

Although he later walked back from that statement, it should be clear (to anyone who can read English) that he was not referring to the failure of the Attorney General’s Office to make a case to continue holding the men. And since Mr Mitchell is a lawyer himself, he would know the import of his words.

Someone then leaked a Cabinet memorandum to the press. It revealed that Mr Mitchell had advised his colleagues in November to parole the Cubans into the country. And as lawyer Fred Smith pointed out, being considered a “threat” is not an offence in Bahamian law, and it is unconstitutional to imprison people for longer than 48 hours without bringing charges.

What followed last week was a series of heated arguments and insult trading in Parliament (otherwise known as a “communication from the minister”), in which Mr Mitchell tried to provide some cover for himself in between vitriolic attacks on his critics.

He received support from the prime minister, who said the Cubans had been refused entry into the US (where they had residency status) and Cuba (where they were born), as well as Panama and Sweden (who were usually helpful countries).

“We were caught between a rock and a hard place,” Mr Christie said. “Why should we have to take them? We have no connection to them, but that is the position we find ourselves in today. It was my view and the view of the Cabinet that a certain course of action should be taken and it was taken. It is a matter of national security.”

The two men - Carlos Pupo and Lazaro Seara Marin - had apparently been involved in an escape attempt at the Detention Centre in 2013. A closed government hearing into the beatings of Cuban inmates at the Detention Centre has been ongoing since then with no result in sight. And it should be remembered that the Detention Centre does not exist in law, and you cannot charge someone with escape from lawful custody if they are not in lawful custody.

In the Nassau Guardian on Monday, Candia Dames reported that the Attorney General’s Office agreed with Mr Mitchell’s November Cabinet paper, which recommended that the Cubans be paroled as asylum seekers. Her reporting included inside information apparently provided by unidentified senior government officials.

“The Immigration Department had been concerned that the lengthy detention would lead to legal action and damage the reputation of The Bahamas. This was also the view of the Office of the Attorney General, which could find no legal authority on which to hold the men,” Ms Dames wrote.

The upshot seems to be that the government is sharply divided on an important legal matter affecting our civil rights. So why is Mr Mitchell taking his usual hard-line stance? The inescapable conclusion is to deflect criticism and present himself as a strong leader in support of his political ambitions.

There is little doubt that most Bahamians - black and white - share a visceral fear of mass Haitian immigration as our economy slowly deteriorates. And many harbour an extreme aversion to foreigners in general, for reasons too complex to go into here.

Mr Mitchell says he has no opinion in the matter, but in reality he is playing to the peanut gallery in the same way that Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump plays to his peculiar audience in America.

The central point to consider in of all these manufactured controversies is whether or not we live under the rule of law. After all, the Constitution must mean something - and if we are to control crime, the government must set the prime example by following the laws that it enacts.

If the two Cubans are a threat, charge them. If you can’t charge them, release them. If you can’t find another country to send them to, deal with it responsibly as a fact of life. If a judge makes a decision, don’t try to overturn the law or intimidate the judiciary by shouting nonsense.

And if the Cabinet is divided, don’t seek to subvert the Constitution in order to grandstand. When criticism comes your way, don’t whine - take it like a man.

As Bahamians we need to consider these matters very carefully. It is not just about foreigners - it is about our own constitutional freedoms.

• What do you think? Send comments to lsmith@tribunemedia.net or visit www.bahamapundit.com.