By NEILL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Immigration Department’s abrupt six-day u-turn, first approving then revoking work permits for two Jamaican handymen, has been “quashed” by the Supreme Court which found this action was “not done transparently, lawfully and fairly”.

Justice Carla Card-Stubbs, in a July 13, 2026, verdict that upheld the Judicial Review challenge launched by Bahamian businessman, Omar Munroe, and his two prospective employees, Travor Howell and Alex Garth McNee, detailed evidence that raises multiple concerns and questions over the Immigration Department’s internal controls, processes and procedures for handling work permit applications.

The judgement disclosed that:

* The July 24, 2025, letters approving work permits for the two Jamaicans were identified as bearing the signature of then-Immigration director, William Pratt. They were issued one day before Mr Pratt stepped down from the post.

However, evidence produced during the Judicial Review hearing showed that the Immigration Department’s subsequent July 30, 2025, letter revoking the permits’ award was also signed by Mr Pratt even though he had supposedly vacated office five days’ earlier.

Mr Munroe and the two Jamaicans argued that Mr Pratt had “no authority” to sign or issue the revocation because he was no longer a serving Immigration director. Justice Card-Stubbs agreed, finding that the Department had provided “no explanation” for why the letter was signed by a seemingly “unauthorised officer”.

* Andrew Gittens, a chief Immigration officer assigned to the Department’s investigations department, confirmed that the work permit cards issued to Mr Howell and Mr McNee were “authentic” when they were presented as evidence in the Judicial Review hearing.

However, in both his written and earlier evidence, he asserted that the Immigration Department’s internal records showed that neither work permit had been issued. And, despite the July 24, 2025, approval letters bearing Mr Pratt’s signature, Mr Gittens said they had been sent “by individuals acting outside the scope of their authority” and the matter was “under investigation” by Immigration.

The senior Immigration officer said the two Jamaican work permits were also never put before, or considered by, the Immigration Board which decides whether to approve or reject all applications.

“The investigation revealed that the letter dated July 24, 2025, was transmitted by individuals acting outside the scope of their authority. Direct instructions had been given within the Department that the work permit cards were not to be issued,” Mr Gittens said in written evidence. He added that both “unauthorised” work permit cards were “to be withheld” and turned over to Immigration but they were found to be missing.

“The Department utilises IDMS for the issuance and tracking of immigration cards issued by them. Records within the IDMS confirm that the work permits cards relating to the [two Jamaicans] were never issued by them,” Mr Gittens added. “The permit cards remain recorded within the system as un-issued documents.

“Though the applicants may have received a letter indicating approval does not constitute the lawful issuance of the work permit cards. Based on information received during the course of this investigation, it is believed that [Mr Munroe] and a female accompanying him may have received the work permit cards from Immigration personnel connected with the matters under investigation.”

Under cross-examination before the Supreme Court, Mr Gittens admitted the two work permit cards presented as evidence were genuine based on the features they contained. “These cards are authentic. The records reflect they were not issued,” he reiterated.

Pressed on the purported non-issuance of the cards, Mr Gittens added: “I seeing it here, but the records reflect that they were not issued. I could take you to the system and bring it up to you at Hawkins Hill, and it will show that they were not issued.”

* The Immigration Department sought to justify the work permit revocation, and non-approval, on several grounds including that the two Jamaicans both had criminal convictions while Mr McNee had been the subject of a deportation order. Mr McNee denied this, but both he and Mr Howell admitted to pleading guilty to assault and obstruction charges - although each asserted they did not do so of their “own free will”.

But, while both were charged with assault of an Immigration officer on June 30, 2025, evidence presented before Justice Card-Stubbs showed the outcome was “an absolute discharge” and resulted in neither man receiving a criminal record. The June 30 magistrates’ court hearing also took place when their work permit applications were in process.

Mr Munroe and the two Jamaicans also alleged that the work permit process was “infected by bad faith and anti-Jamaican bias”. Marcia Morgan-Mackey, the mother of the Jamaican duo, even supplied allegations of “prior encounters with Immigration officers, alleged hostility toward Jamaicans and alleged targeting of her business and sons.

“Her evidence included prior encounters with Chadwill Adams, one of the officers who met with Mr. Munroe on August 6, 2025, concerning the work permits,” Justice Card-Stubbs noted. Mr Munroe had alleged that, during the meeting with Stephen LaRoda, the Immigration director, and Mr Adams, acting assistant director of Immigration, the latter “expressed great hostility towards me” and “his tone of voice was extremely aggressive”.

However, the judge found there was no evidence to “establish actual bias” by Immigration. And, while quashing the original work permits’ revocation, Justice Card-Stubbs remitted both applications back to the Department of Immigration for reconsideration using the necessary lawful procedures and processes.

Detailing the dispute’s origins, Justice Card-Stubbs said Mr Munroe and his prospective employees were complaining that the work permits were “unlawfully unapproved” despite complying with all Department of Labour and Immigration requirements - advertising the job vacancies locally, obtaining the labour certificate, submitting the relevant applications and paying the necessary processing and other fees.

As a result, they challenged the Immigration Department’s work permits revocation “on grounds of procedural unfairness, inadequate reasons, illegality, irrationality, legitimate expectation and bias”. Immigration, though, countered that “no lawful work permits were ever granted” because the applications were not placed before or approved by the Immigration Board, “and that any approval communications or cards were generated or released without lawful authority”.

Mr Munroe alleged that, after receiving the approval letters on July 24, 2025, he paid for $4,000 in fees to the Department of Immigration and obtained the physical work permits. However, six days later on July 30, 2025, Immigration recanted the initial letter by stating the permits had not been approved and instructing the two Jamaicans “to wind-up their affairs and leave the country”.

“The respondent characterises the July 30, 2025, letter as a correction of an unauthorised and invalid approval,” Justice Card-Stubbs noted. “The respondent’s case is that any apparent approval was unauthorised, ultra vires and legally ineffective because the permits were not approved by the proper statutory authority, namely the director and/or the Board of Immigration….

“The applications contained serious deficiencies and inaccuracies, including the applicants being physically present in The Bahamas at the time that the application was made. The respondent submits that there are defects in medical and police certificates, unsigned or improperly completed materials, and failures to disclose relevant Immigration or criminal history.”

Justice Card-Stubbs, in her verdict, said Mr Gittens was unable to explain how the July 30, 2025, work permit revocation letter bore Mr Pratt’s signature given that he had stepped down five days’ earlier. She added that Immigration had provided no evidence as to how it determined the approvals were unauthorised, and the power used to revoke them.

“It appears that the respondent [Immigration] has adopted and thrown its weight behind the letter denying approval of the work permits. That letter is dated July 30, 2025, and bears the signature of Mr Pratt who was, by then, no longer the director,” the judge ruled.

“The respondent concedes that at the time that that letter was issued, Mr. Pratt had already demitted office and handed over. There is no suggestion, or evidence, that Mr. Pratt was authorised to act for the Department of Immigration on July 30, 2025. Yet, there is no explanation to this court as to how and why such a document was issued by, on the face of it, an unauthorised officer. No such explanation or evidence was forthcoming.”

Justice Card-Stubbs also said she was not satisfied with the assertion that the original approval letter was issued without proper authorisation, adding that Mr Munroe and the two Jamaicans were entitled to rely on its contents. The abrupt revocation, just five days’ later, ran afoul of “public law duties of fairness and rationality”.

Mr Munroe, who relied on “a consultant agency” to fill-out the work permit application paperwork, and the Jamaicans acknowledged that the submissions contained errors. And they said they were unaware of Immigration’s policy that foreign workers, who are the subject of first-time permit applications, must be outside The Bahamas until the necessary approvals are obtained.

Justice Card-Stubbs said much of the Immigration Department’s case was based on the reasons it has to reject work permit applications. This, she added, missed the mark because the real question in Judicial Review proceedings was whether it used its powers, authority and discretion lawfully. And she found that the alleged deficiencies with the two Jamaicans’ applications “do not save” the revocation because these were not considered as factors.

There was also no evidence that the requirement for applicants to remain outside The Bahamas until their permits are approved was ever mentioned to Mr Munroe and the Jamaicans - both of whom were already here. And nothing suggested the alleged deportation order against Mr McNee was a factor in the July 30, 2025, decision.

“If the respondent’s case is that the work permits were cancelled or revoked because conditions were breached, the Department should show that the statutory cancellation power was engaged and that the relevant decision-maker was satisfied of the breach. The respondent must show that these matters were taken into account at the time of the decision. There is no such evidence before me,” Justice Card-Stubbs ruled.

“It is manifestly unfair, especially in circumstances where the Department has accepted payment from a person for a benefit - and subsequently extended the benefit to the person - to merely notify that person by e-mail that their application is ‘not approved’. Notably, in this case, the applicants had already passed the state of approval….

“Therefore, the timing and nature of the July 30, 2025, letter ought to have been addressed by the Department. To a reasonable onlooker, an explanation would be required. In public parlance, a statement of reasons would ‘only be just and fair’. As a matter of law, what the respondent did was procedurally irregular and unfair.”