Tuesday, August 9, 2016

Tivoli COE: Diddly Squat (2)

Part 2 of Chapter 12  of the Report has not done diddly squat to clarify "whether copies of affidavits and other confidential supporting documents attached to or related to the request for extradition of Christopher Coke were found in coke's offices, and the circumstances under which and purposes for which those documents came to be there." ToR (O)

The evidence is that a copy of what appeared to be Extradition papers ( in a rolled up state) was found by a member of the Engineers, JDF, and handed over to a police officer who has since emigrated  after resigning from the JCF. 

The said papers could not be found.

The finding JDF officer could not identify the contents of the papers which were found in a drawer.

" It said something like " The Federal Grand Jury of New York" and Coke's name was mentioned.. I recall the papers had been rolled up. We had to unroll it...    It may have been more than one sheet."

 Findings 12.29
"Nevertheless we find that a set of papers relevant to the extradition of Coke was found by the JDF at his offices at Presidential Click......
"We find that those documents found by the Engineers related to the extradition request although we are unable to identify each document specifically.
" In the absence of evidence from Coke himself, it is impossible to determine the purposes for which he had the documents or how he received them."


  • So the Commissioners were unable to say (i) if those papers found were copies of authenticated documents; (ii) if they were copies of affidavits and other confidential supporting documents attached to the Extradition Request of Christopher "Dudus" Coke.
  • Furthermore, did the Commissioners seek to ascertain which officials of the GOJ had possession and custody of the said documents throughout the period under review?
  • Is it really "impossible to determine the purposes for which Coke would have gotten copies of the supporting documents related to his extradition in the absence of Coke himself giving evidence"?
  • Given the security operations which were activated during the period Coke was in custody, was there the remotest of probability that Coke would have been expected to give evidence before the COE?
  • Even if video conferencing would obviate the need for Coke's physical presence, why would Coke be willing to facilitate the Tivoli COE
Part 1 deals with whether there was any communication between any official of the GOJ and Christopher Coke during the period 24 August 2009 to 22 June 2010-- ToR (N).

No comments: