Balancing law, vision in ‘free movement’ goal

Last Wednesday’s launch of full free movement among Barbados, Belize, Dominica, and St Vincent and the Grenadines was a watershed moment in regional integration. It promises new opportunities as these citizens will be allowed to live, work, and study without the usual bureaucratic hurdles, such as skills certificates or work permits.

But while regionalism is rightly celebrated, this initiative has also sparked a serious debate on the legal foundations underpinning its implementation.

At the heart of this debate is tension between policy-making and the rule of law. On one side stands the government, with Attorney General Dale Marshall defending the legality of the arrangement under the existing Immigration Act. On the other hand, the Barbados Bar Association (BBA) and the opposition Democratic Labour Party (DLP) raise deep concerns about the constitutionality of the action and the need for proper legal procedures.

Each of these perspectives carries weight, and neither should be dismissed.

Attorney General Marshall insists that the minister responsible for immigration acted within the scope of his authority when he granted indefinite stay status to nationals of the participating countries.

He points to the discretionary authority granted by the Immigration Act, which allows the minister to determine the duration of stay for non-citizens. Further, he situated the policy within the CARICOM Protocol on Enhanced Cooperation, which allows subsets of member states to deepen integration through agreements.

Additionally, Prime Minister Mia Mottley’s decision to begin implementation ahead of parliamentary passage, while unusual, highlights a pragmatic move to prevent potential disadvantage to citizens of the participating countries. According to her, the transition period is protected under existing CARICOM arrangements while the formal legislative work is finalised.

The government has promised that legislation will soon be introduced in Parliament, which will solidify the legal standing of the arrangement and respond to concerns raised by legal professionals.

But the concerns raised by the Bar and echoed by the DLP are not without merit. The BBA points out that in a constitutional democracy, executive discretion cannot override the legislature’s role when it comes to fundamental policy changes.

They argue that when a government policy alters the rights and obligations of individuals, particularly in a way as sweeping as the abolition of work permits and the grant of indefinite stay, this requires formal legislative authorisation.

The Bar also insists that the Caribbean Community (Movement of Skilled Nationals) Act remains the main domestic law governing free movement. To bypass or replace this regime without a parliamentary vote undermines legal clarity and opens the door to possible challenges.

Moreover, the lack of an established administrative process, such as formal registration on arrival, creates uncertainty for both immigration officials and individuals attempting to navigate their new rights under the policy.

The DLP’s position, while possibly more political in tone, highlights a broader point. Policies, no matter how visionary, must be executed within the framework of the law. Bypassing Parliament, even temporarily, can be seen as setting an unfavourable precedent.

This editorial acknowledges that progress sometimes requires bold moves, especially when it comes to deepening regional cooperation. Barbados has long been a leader in CARICOM, and this initiative reflects a continued commitment to integration and solidarity.

There is also the argument that progress must not come at the expense of process. While the attorney general’s reassurances are important, and while the planned legislation is welcome, the government should reflect on the optics and implications of moving ahead before laying the legislative foundation.

The rule of law is not a bureaucratic inconvenience. As such, even the most well-intentioned policies must be subject to scrutiny and clear legal backing. The government would do well to not only move quickly on the promised legislation but also to ensure robust public engagement about the rights, obligations, and procedures of the new policy shift.

The vision of a unified Caribbean space is within reach, but its foundation must be firmly anchored in law. The attorney general’s assurance that legislation is imminent is reassuring and should be paired with dialogue and legislative rigour.

The free movement arrangement is inarguably a bold and commendable step towards deeper regional unity, but even the most promising journeys require careful navigation. In marrying vision with legality, Barbados can lead by example.