Amid growing complaints about travellers being refused entry, Caricom Heads have called on member states to comply with decisions by the community and rulings by the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on free movement issues.
In recent months, Jamaica has been at loggerheads with Trinidad and Tobago over free movement. Kingston has argued that Port-of-Spain has improperly denied entry to its citizens. Trinidad has said that the number is small and the denial of entry was justified.
Meeting here from July 4 to July 6, the Caricom Heads, in the communique from the meeting, noted that the overwhelming majority of citizens were moving throughout the Community without hindrance.
“They however urged Member States to comply with the relevant decisions taken by the Community and the rulings of the Caribbean Court of Justice and take all appropriate measures to give full effect to the free movement regimes. They reaffirmed the principle that persons were to be treated with dignity at ports of entry,” the communique said.
Heads of Government have also mandated the Caricom Secretariat to convene a meeting of Chief Immigration Offi-cers, Caricom ambassadors, and other relevant officials by September 30, 2016, to address the challenges being faced by Community nationals travelling throughout the Region.
The Heads also reminded Member States to submit statistics annually to the Secretariat on the refusals of entry and the operation of the free movement regimes. It reminded that these statistics must be submitted by January 31 of the following year.
The celebrated case of Jamaican Shanique Myrie, who had successfully taken Barbados to the CCJ over refusal of entry and other matters, had addressed the issue of free movement.
The CCJ, in its October, 2013 ruling, had said that the right of “definite entry” emanating from a 2007 Caricom decision clarified the right of free movement as it made clear that every Community national is entitled to a “definite entry” of six months upon arrival in another Member State.
While the 2007 Conference Decision entitles a Member State to limit the free movement of a national of another Member State if such national is “undesirable” or would become “a charge on public funds,” the CCJ said that this entitlement must be construed as an exception to the right of entry. Consequently, the scope of the refusal and the grounds on which it is should be based must be interpreted narrowly and the burden of proof must rest on the Member of State that seeks to invoke it.
The Court held that in order for a Member State to limit the right of entry of a national of another Member State in the interests of public morals, national security and safety, and national health, the visiting national must present a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society. The threat posed should, at the very least, be one to do something prohibited by national law.
