Maroc - NEWSDAY.CO.TT - A la Une - 04/Oct 08:31

High Court to rule on breaches of Warner's rights

THE High Court is now expected to rule on the extent of the breaches of former FIFA vice president Jack Warner’s constitutional rights in his challenge to his extradition to the United States. On September 23, Justice Karen Reid ordered a permanent stay of Warner’s extradition proceedings, finding that they could no longer lawfully continue. However, she allowed the trial to proceed to determine the constitutional breaches, violations, and the relief, declarations and compensation to which Warner may be entitled. She reserved her ruling after the three-hour-long session at the Waterfront Judicial Centre, Port of Spain, on October 3. Opening the hearing, UK attorney Robert Strang, representing the State, informed the court that overnight, the Office of the Attorney General had received new responses from former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi, former head of the Central Authority Graeme McClean, and attorney Netram Kowlessar. “At the last hearing, claimant’s attorneys said they would press the court to make findings of deliberate deception. The AG considered it necessary to give notice of that,” Strang explained. “Although they are not parties, any findings against the State can reflect on their conduct.” He said both Al-Rawi and McClean had asked for their responses to be placed before the court and had already been disclosed to Warner’s lawyers. Strang admitted the State was still digesting Al-Rawi’s response and could not provide assistance to the court. “In the interest of fairness, the AG proposes to put his responses in affidavit and prompt submissions. The claimant can respond if they wish,” Strang said. He maintained the State still intended to address the reliefs Warner sought, but acknowledged the new material challenged the Attorney General’s concessions already made in the case. While not asking for an adjournment, Strang said the responses were “unfounded,” as, in certain respects, the facts outlined were inconsistent with other accounts and the evidence. However, he said the Attorney General, in the interest of fairness, wanted to present them since any finding by the court against the State “can reflect on their conduct.” “It is not the position I would like to be in,” he admitted, “but this is the position of the Attorney General’s request to the court.” Warner’s lead attorney, Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, resisted any adjournment. “There is a mass of contradictions in those documents. I am not here to impugn any attorney general or any attorney; that is for Parliament or the disciplinary committee. The core of this case is the conduct of the Office of the Attorney General.” He described the late filings as an attempt “to gaslight” and shift blame. “What they have to say is an attempt to put blame on various persons. It is unfortunate that they chose last minute to explain their actions. We cannot hold off on this matter. Who is going to pay the cost of this?” Hosein insisted that nothing in the new statements changed the record before the court. “Courts were lied to and told falsehoods by the State. It goes to the rule of law and the administration of justice. This is a subversion of justice and contempt of court. It is time to stand up for the administration of justice in this country.” Justice Reid agreed, ruling: “Ample time has been had to put in additional information. I do not wish to adjourn the trial again. It is unfortunate that those persons felt the need not to participate until the last moment. That is no fault of the court or claimant. We will proceed on the basis of what has been filed and nothing further.” Hosein then delivered a sweeping history of the case, tracing the extradition proceedings back to 2015. He focused on the “certificate of specialty” issued by the Attorney General, which certified that a bespoke arrangement existed with the United States. “There was none. They maintained a stoic silence,” Hosein said, accusing the State of a “deliberate attempt to obfuscate and hide the truth from the office that is supposed to be the guardian of the public’s interest.” He argued that Warner’s rights were trampled through “fraudulent misrepresentation, reckless disregard for the truth, deceit, bad faith, and dishonesty.” “This is not a case of a missing document. It did not exist, and they knew that. The crux of the case is how they misled five courts, right up to the Privy Council.” Hosein called it “a cover-up of a Watergate nature” and “villainous behaviour” that eroded public confidence in the administration of justice. In reply, Strang conceded that “extradition was not premised on a correct understanding of the facts, and the AG accepts that the State cannot pursue the extradition on that basis.” He said the Attorney General’s concessions stood: the arrest to proceed (ATP) and the supporting specialty certificate were invalid. But Strang resisted Warner’s call for sweeping findings of deception. He argued that for decades, attorneys general had issued similar certificates based on the treaty with the US, believing it complied with section 8(3) of the Extradition Act. “What derailed the claimant’s case,” Strang said, “was that the bespoke arrangement was misunderstood. The AG’s office did not correct that misunderstanding, which the AG has conceded. But that does not invalidate certificates in other extraditions.” On damages, Strang accepted compensation would follow, but said vindicatory damages should only be considered if Justice Reid found it necessary to vindicate Warner’s constitutional rights. Hosein dismissed arguments about past practice. “Past extraditions are not before this court. Past practice cannot trump the law. With my client, the certificate identified a bespoke arrangement. Fraud vitiates everything. They knew there was no specialty arrangement in place in accordance with the law.” He urged the court to treat the breaches as “serious, deliberate violations” and to grant both compensation and vindicatory damages. Justice Reid did not give a date for her decision. Warner, 81, has lived under the shadow of extradition to the United States since 2015 on corruption charges linked to the world governing body for football, FIFA. He was indicted on 29 charges ranging from racketeering to wire fraud and bribery in one of the largest corruption scandals in football history. His bail, set at $2.5 million, kept him confined to TT and, Hosein said, in jail for two nights. Although the US charges remain in the US courts, Warner will not be sent there to face them. With his extradition now permanently stayed, he has said he now intends to look to the future and whatever role he can play in the country’s development. The judge’s order to permanently stay the extradition proceedings came after the State conceded that the arrangement between the US and TT for Warner’s extradition was flawed. In her ruling, Justice Reid noted, “This breach is more significant when the court considers the change in administration of the requesting state since the delivery of the board’s decision in 2022 and notwithstanding the references therein to the board’s acceptance that the requesting state will act in good faith and on its international obligations, the new administration has very publicly and quite vocally articulated and in fact demonstrated that when it comes to the rights of non-citizens, it is unburdened by considerations of procedural due process and the rule of law.“ As such, it was imperative that, as the board (Privy Council) noted in its judgment, in order to ensure that the required statutory protection regarding speciality was being afforded to the claimant, an arrangement that expressly accorded with the requirements of Section 8.3 of the act was required to have been made between the United States and TT. “While more specific findings will be made in respect of the facts alleged by both parties and in relation to whether any of the several rights that the claimants are alleged to have been breached by the defendant were in fact breached, I find it is sufficient for today’s purposes to confine myself to the consideration just outlined that the conduct of the defendant breached the claimant’s right to the protection of the law as conceded by the defendant.” According to the evidence in the case, on September 21, 2015, Al-Rawi issued a certificate under section 8(5) of the act, which declared that an arrangement with the US existed for Warner. That certificate was presented as “conclusive evidence.” In 2023, after several legal challenges, in a response to a freedom of information request, the Office of the Attorney General admitted: “A recent search of documents at the Central Authority has not discovered a written version of this agreement.” This speciality principle was central to Warner’s case. Former chief magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle, in sending Warner’s current constitutional challenge to the High Court, described the revelation as a “colossal misrepresentation” by the State’s legal team in her June 2023 ruling. Also appearing for Warner are Rishi Dass, SC, Anil Maraj, Sasha Bridgemohansingh and Aadam Hosein. Current head of the Central Authority, Sheriza Khan-Heinz, appeared with Strang for the State. The post High Court to rule on breaches of Warner's rights appeared first on Trinidad and Tobago Newsday.