Immigration Officers schooled on CARICOM and CSME Protocol

Mar 06, 2015 News

---

In wake of the infamous case of Shanique Myrie v. Barbados, where the

issues of discrimination, inhumane and degrading treatment, and refusal of entry of a CARICOM national into a CARICOM Member State arose, it was deemed necessary that immigration personnel be educated on boundaries of their authorities, and the rights of CARICOM nationals.
Under the CARICOM Trade and Competitiveness Project (CTCP) Component 300, a series of training seminars are to be conducted in six Member States; Belize, Dominica, Guyana, Grenada, Jamaica, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.
The Police Officer’s Training Complex, Camp Road and Young Streets, yesterday facilitated the informative exercise. The activity saw CARICOM Secretariat’s Technical Coordinator, Technical Service Unit, Melbour Phillip, and Legal Officer O’neil Francis addressing 31 members of the Immigration Department of the Guyana Police Force.
The seminar was in keeping with all that the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has been fighting for, through the provisions laid down by the Revised Treaty of Chaguaramas (RTC), and the concept of Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME).
The immigration officers were told that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) decision in Myrie’s case, explicated that immigration authorities have very little discretion to exercise, with respect to denying CARICOM nationals entry into another Member State.
This, Francis said, is by virtue of Article 45 of the RTC, which states that Member States commit themselves to the goal of free movement of their nationals within the Community.
The provision was solidified by a decision which was made at the 2008 CARICOM Heads of Government Meeting, which declared the right of automatic entry of nationals to other Member States. The officers were informed that CARICOM nationals are to travel hassle free when entering and leaving another CARICOM jurisdiction.
However, this freedom of movement and promised hassle-free travel, does not allow a CARICOM national to stay in another Member State of an indefinite period of time. The general rule is that CARICOM nationals be allowed a stay of six months within another CARICOM jurisdiction, exceptions being made for special circumstances.
An example of special circumstances would involve persons who are employed on contracts lasting longer than six months, in which case the CARICOM national will be allowed to stay for the term specified under the contract. The contract may be renewed or extended, and that CARICOM national will be allowed to stay until the new arrangement ends.
The group of 31 were warned against acts of discrimination of nationals from other Member States, and the serious legal complications that they can commit their country to, if found guilty of such acts.
The CARICOM legal officer went on to explain the importance of adhering to community law which has been laid down by the provisions of the RTC, and the precedential nature of Community Decisions made at the Heads of Government Meetings.
In doing so, he told the officers that Member States are expected to change, amend or repeal any legislation which conflicts with Community law.
With respect to their roles and what they can do, the officers were informed their first priority and original job, is to ensure the security interest of their state. However, while executing this role, they are expected to respect principles of CSME, and the right of nationals to move freely to exercise their individual rights.
In keeping in touch with today’s reality, Francis touched on the fact that in many cases, foreigners from third states (such as U.S.A, Canada, and England etc.) are afforded much better treatment, whenever passing through immigration, than our own CARICOM nationals.
In discussing the grounds upon which an Immigration Officer might deny a CARICOM national entry to another Member State, Francis told the group that issues related to terrorism threats, protection of public health, morals, human and animal life qualifies. He added that a national may be denied entry, if they fail to present to immigration officials, evidence of sufficient funds to support the duration of their stay.
However, the abovementioned, according the Francis, are not easily proven as sufficient grounds for refusal of entry. He emphasised that credible information or evidence MUST be presented, in other words convince the relevant authorities that the refusal of entry is valid.
Francis said that there must be a “genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interest in the society”. He went on to explain that “while the test is to examine whether the visitor is posing to do something which is prohibited under Guyana’s law, it is also important to note that Guyanese nationals must have been actively prosecuted for the same thing in Guyana.”
Finally, with respect to the procedure which is to be followed when denying a CARICOM national entry, the officers were informed that they are tasked with informing the detainee (national being refused entry) that they have the option of filling out a complaint form.
The Legal Officer explained that many immigration officers within Member States were completely unaware of the existence of a complaint form, and as such were unable to pass them on to nationals who were denied entry to their state.
Additionally, Francis informed the officers that any refusal of a CARICOM national MUST be put into writing and should include the immigration officer’s name and badge number.
The officers were also told of their duty to inform a CARICOM national who was denied entry, of his/her right to challenge the immigration’s decision to refuse them. The national also has the option of consulting an attorney-at-law, the consular official to their country, and or a family member.

---

---