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

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 ...