Skip to main content

DEA: Reflections on the extradition process


Major General (Ret.), then Permanent Secretary Ministry of National Security, Stewart E. Saunders gave his assessment of the Extradition Framework:

"The steps to be taken when an Extradition Request is made must be clearly and unambiguously set out and must in no way shape, or, form be subjected to the intervention of the political directorate. This process should be treated solely as a judicial process to avoid any opportunity of the said political directorate determining its commencement or conclusion.

In the matter before the Commission of Enquiry, the problems that occurred or, manifested themselves, did so because the Security Forces were prevented from carrying out their functions in 2009. This was the first time in our history of effecting such requests that there was political interference of the magnitude that was evident. Jamaica would have been spared the events of May 2010 had this not been so.

It is, in my opinion, grossly irresponsible and a breach of loyalty to the nation for a government to attempt to deny the facts surrounding information and intelligence presented by the Security Forces and to further insinuate that the said Forces acted without the relevant knowledge and authority of their Superiors, all because of political expediency.

The Government’s willful misrepresentation of the facts succeeded in jeopardizing operations in place to capture Mr Christopher Coke. If the Extradition Request, which was no different from any other actioned by the relevant/administration previously, had been signed in August 2009 when presented:
a. There would have been no fortification of communities.
b. The illegitimate regime of Tivoli Gardens and surrounding communities would not have felt emboldened to challenge the legitimate State
in open, pre-meditated and planned violent engagements.
c. The mass migration of gunmen to prevent the execution of the Arrest
Warrant would not have occurred.
d. The capture of Mr Christopher Coke would have been effected with
the minimum loss of life, if any at all, compared to that which occurred in May 2010.

Perceived political expediency resulted in disloyalty to the nation. The process of initiating, implementing and concluding an Extradition Request must prevent such recurrences in the future.”
(Source: Confidential memorandum dated November 5, 2015)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

"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 ...

By-Election Predisposition

Introduction A massive amount of time and resources have been devoted to the issue of the course to be properly taken once a victorious electoral candidate has been found to be "disqualified" under S. 40 of the Constitution of Jamaica. Simply put, the crux of the matter is whether the second place candidate should, without more, be accorded the seat by the court; or that the said election be deemed null and void and a by-election ordered to decide the people's representative. This matter consumed inordinate amounts of energy - judicial and otherwise - due primarily to the silence of the Constitution on what recourse should be adopted in such circumstance. A cardinal tenet of democratic government is that the people must decide their representatives and not a select grouping - no matter their qualification or status. The Constitution of Jamaica fully recognized this imperative even though it expressly delegates the determination of questions as to membership of either Ho...

Communication Error!

Jamaica Gleaner Contributor, Martin Henry has written an interesting article entitled “Victory for the rule of law” published on Sunday, April 20, 2008 . In his last paragraph Henry stated: " A troubled citizen's concerns about the legitimacy of laws passed in the past with the participation of MPs who may have been in Daryl Vaz's dual-allegiance position was published as The Letter of the Day by The Gleaner last Wednesday [April 16]. Lawyer Dr Paul Ashley made a great deal out of the same issue when we both appeared on the TV programme Impact on that same day. The Constitution dissolves these fears in the wisely anticipatory provision of Section 51 (2): "The presence or participation of any person not entitled to be present or to participate in the proceedings of the House shall not invalidate those proceedings." Interpreting legal provisions is an exercise fraught with dangers, especially if one is not acquainted with the rules governing interpretation. Without...