Skip to main content

The Dudus Extradition Affair (DEA)

The extradition of Christopher 'Dudus' Coke represents the most significant challenge to Jamaican statecraft to date. Political memories are short. It can be argued that the system is so designed that what has been politically embarrassing is conveniently forgotten. In this series attempts will be made to highlight some of the most potent aspects of this affair.

 The Government of Jamaica (GOJ) has issued a formal apology to the residents of Tivoli, the members of the security forces and everyone that was involved in this sordid affair.The omnibus nature of that apology makes it completely meaningless and insincere. Furthermore, none of the main players involved in the decision-making processes, or the actual operation, has made an apology or even expressed regret. From their perspective, their actions were completely warranted and justified by the perceived threat to the Jamaican state.

Extradition off Christopher Coke involved among other things:
*death of 69-73 persons,
*declaration of a limited state of emergency,
*resignation of the prime minister,
* use of mortars on a civilian population,
*armed intervention against the state,
*hiring of a law firm to lobby the US government in an inter-state matter,
*resignation of a Senator from the incumbent regime,
*initiating two (2) commissions of enquiry,
*payment by the state of damages incurred,
*the killing of Mr. Keith Clarke at his residence in Upper St. Andrew resulting in three (3) members of the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF)  being charged with murder,
*involvement of a US military spy plane apparently without the knowledge and consent of either the Minister of National Security or the Minister of Defence (the Prime Minister),
*military assistance provided by the USA to the Jamaican security forces risked being suspended under the Leahy Vetting Amendment due to reports of Human Rights violations.
*public awareness of secret Memoranda Of Understanding between the Government of Jamaica (GOJ) and the Government of the United States of America (USG) concerning electronic surveillance and the use of information gathered from such activity.



Comments

Anonymous said…
I like what you guys tend to be up too. This type of clever work and exposure!
Keep up the wonderful works guys I've included you guys to
my personal blogroll.

Popular posts from this blog

DEA: Contracts with GOJ

Christopher 'Dudus' Coke  reputedly had tremendous wealth, powerful financial and commercial connections locally and internationally.The actual amount, nature, extent and location have never been made public.The proceeds of his drug running would have been strategically laundered with the assistance of shell companies strategically based in facilitating jurisdictions; business and property holdings arranged so as not to reveal the beneficial owner; and wherever possible, business conducted on a cash or barter basis. Coke had many business associates cum partners and substantial contracts with the Government of Jamaica (GOJ). The full extent of his business relationships with the GOJ has never been made public or verified. Nationwide News Network gave some indication of the number of contracts and the spread of government agencies involved: “Records from the Office of the Contractor General show that Incomparable Enterprise, a company owned and operated by Tivoli Gardens don...

"Declaration" Not "Determination"

Both the Prime Minister and the Speaker of the House of Representatives have conveniently confused calls for declaration of citizenship status by Members of either House with the determination of questions as to membership of either House. The Chief Justice of Jamaica has determined that individuals who have renewed their US passports and travelled thereon are disqualified from being validly elected or appointed as a Member of either House. Proponents of the impotence of the Speaker, in the matter of requiring a declaration by individual members, have sought to rely on Section 44 (1) of the Constitution which states: Any question whether - a. any person has been validly elected or appointed as a member of either House; or b. any member of either House has vacated his seat therein or is required, under the provisions of subsection (3) or subsection (4) of section 41 of this Constitution, to cease to exercise any of his functions as a member, shall be determined by the Supreme Court ...