Nassau, N.P., The Bahamas - Put that Smuggling of Migrants Bill on Hold!
HOLD THE BILL!!!
There are some questions emanating from the press release issued by the Government of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas in relation to the intention of the Government to debate and pass the "Smuggling of Migrants Bill".
In its own press statement the Government is quoted as saying, "The clause being circulated by Mr Bain deals with smuggled migrants as victims and witnesses of this crime. It simply prevents a victim from being charged under this new anti-smuggling law for acts that arise directly from being smuggled, such as illegal entry of possession of a fraudulent document supplied by the smuggler".
There are a number of questions that begs a clear and concise answer considering that someone being smuggled may not to be the same as a person being trafficked. According to The UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR )"Human smuggling is when people called smugglers (sometimes referred to as "Coyotes"), help persons cross borders irregularly, typically with their consent, in return for money or other material benefit:
The UNHCR further defines Human Trafficking as the exploitation of people for profit such as forced labor or sexual exploitation".
So the Government needs to explain how can smuggled migrants qualify as victims and witnesses - as well as for short term humanitarian care, if by the UNHCR definition these individuals are typlically smuggled with "their"consent and usually by paying the smuggler money or by other material means?
So this begs the question, if the individuals being smuggled do not fall under the category as persons being kidnapped and trafficked to engage in forced labor and or for sexual exploitation, how do these individuals end up in a proposed Smuggling and Migrants bill in the Commonwealrh of The Bahamas as "Victims" and not "Criminals?
How will the Government determine from a boat or plane load of migrants who qualifies as smuggled persons (someone who paid to be brought to The Bahamas illegally) from trafficked persons (someone kidnapped and forced against their will)?
If the purpose of this bill is designed to put teeth into the law to punish smugglers, it cannot at the same time serve to exonrate those being smuggled as victims and witnesses, shielded from arrest and prosecution. The probability is that both smuggled migrants and smuggler are on the same vessel for the same purpose.
The general understanding with these kinds of smuggling operations is the individuals desiring to be smuggled to a destination illegally, "pay" a smuggler to smuggle them to said destination. This would mean that smuggled individuals are not victims, as nothing was done to them nor were they forced to make the journey. Second the smuggled migrant is indeed a witnesses but a witnesses to a crime and a crime that they are more than likely an accessory to.
There appears to be a section in the bill under the heading "Immunity from prosecution of smuggled migrants" - that says in part "A smuggled migrant cannot be liable to criminal prosecution under this Act in respects of
(A) illegal entry into the receiving country
(B) remaining illegally in the receiving country or transit country or
(C) possessing a fraudulent or identity document
It would be important for the Government to confirm if the above is true and what is their true intent when it comes to these smuggled migrants. There are many more questions. I was informed that it was the intent of the Government to debate and pass this bill today, Wednesday December 3rd 2025 or by tomorrow Thursday December 4th 2025.
I would strongly recommend Director of Communications Latrae Rahming encourage the Government to put the brakes on debating and passing this bill until there can be wide spread national consultation and input by the Bahamian people including members of the legal fraternity, the Church and Civil Society. I was just sent a copy of the bill and like many Bahamians, I have not had sufficient time to read it and I suspect neither have many other citizens.
Bills are comprised of serious legal language and the wrong language used in a bill could result in a wrong or devastating outcome. Bills tabled in the House of Assembly usually become the law of the land and so every bill should include the correct language, which should be very clear. However from the looks of things so far, this particular bill doesn't appear to be very clear and could open the door to suspicion and national doubtsuspicion and national doubt. Just my thoughts.
Kevin Harris
Wednesday December 3rd 2025
