2 weeks ago
5
Derek Achong
Senior Reporter
Attorney General John Jeremie has launched a major probe into his predecessors and the Office of the Attorney General’s handling of the United States’ long-standing extradition request for former Fifa vice president Jack Warner.
The probe was revealed by British attorney Robert Strang, as the trial of Warner’s latest constitutional challenge over his proposed extradition was set to go on trial before Justice Karen Reid yesterday.
Strang, who was recently appointed to replace the State’s legal team for Warner’s case, claimed that Warner’s lawyers led by Fyard Hosein, SC, had raised valid concerns over a purported agreed arrangement between the US and this country relative to the extradition request for Warner.
He admitted that while the AG’s Office had claimed the existence of the arrangement, which specifically deals with the criminal charges Warner would face in the US if he is eventually extradited, it subsequently admitted that it could not be found or may not have existed.
Strang apologised to Warner, as he admitted that his previous civil lawsuit challenging his extradition was rejected by the local courts and the United Kingdom-based Privy Council based on the agreement.
“It is plain that the Privy Council decided the case based on a misunderstanding of facts fostered by the AG’s Office,” Strang said.
Requesting a last-minute adjournment of the trial, Strang claimed that Jeremie was in the process of investigating what transpired so he could provide the court with necessary information required to resolve the case.
“The AG wishes to assure the court that he takes these matters very seriously,” Strang said.
“He has started an investigation, which is still complete. This must be done fairly in the interest of natural justice,” he added.
Strang stated that the probe may take several weeks to complete, as staff at the AG’s Office, who had already supplied statements, may need to provide additional information after their reports are cross-referenced to documentary evidence.
He said the outcome of the probe could affect confidence in the administration of justice and may affect future extraditions to the US. He admitted that concessions may have to be made.
In his submissions, Hosein did not object to the adjournment, as he said he and his client welcomed the move by Jeremie.
Hosein suggested that there was “tremendous fabrication”, since the extradition process was initiated in 2015 to attempt to “politically victimise” his client.
“They took away 10 of the best years of my client’s life,” Hosein said.
“If not for my team’s intervention, he would have been in Alcatraz or Sing Sing by now,” he added, as he referenced two famous US correctional facilities.
Hosein pointed out that after admitting that the “bespoke” agreement tailored to Warner’s proposed extradition could not be found, the former legal team for the AG’s Office claimed the purported agreement was based on the provisions of previous extradition requests that were successfully facilitated, including some under Jeremie’s second stint as AG from 2009-2010.
“People who represent the State cannot be cavalier and hide or fabricate documents. Persons in high office must come clean,” Hosein said.
Stating that the pending case goes to the heart of the Constitution and the criminal justice system, Hosein said, “This is a matter for the protection of citizens…If they could do this to a person like Jack Warner, you can imagine what would happen to a normal person.”
He said he and his client would eagerly await the outcome of the probe, which he suggested may lead to a parallel criminal investigation.
After hearing the submissions, Justice Reid agreed to adjourn the trial to give Strang time to adduce evidence over the outcome of the probe.
“I am prepared to have the evidence so findings are not made on a speculative basis,” Justice Reid said.
The case is scheduled to come up for a status hearing on September 12. Justice Reid reserved October 3 for a new trial if such is required.
Warner, 81, is accused by US authorities of 29 charges related to fraud, racketeering and engaging in illegal wire transfers while he was in the Fifa hierarchy.
The offences are alleged to have taken place in the United States, T&T and other jurisdictions between 1990 and June 2011, the year Warner quit Fifa after being suspended.
After being arrested on a provisional warrant pursuant to the extradition request, Warner was released on $2.5 million bail
He is one of several senior executives of world football’s governing body who were indicted on a series of charges after an investigation into corruption in football, conducted by the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice in 2015.
Several of his former colleagues have pleaded guilty to the charges and have been sentenced. Warner’s sons, Daryan and Daryll, were also indicted and pleaded guilty to their charges.
The extradition proceedings against Warner were put on hold while he pursued a civil lawsuit claiming inconsistencies between this country’s extradition treaty with the US and the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act, which was passed by Parliament in 1985 before being amended in 2004.
In upholding the decision of the local courts to reject Warner’s lawsuit, the Privy Council ruled that there was sufficient conformity between the treaty and the legislation despite minor differences.
“For the reasons set out, the board is satisfied that a broad and generous construction should be applied to the interpretation of conformity in Section 4 (2) of the act and that the matters raised by the appellant do not lead to any breach of the conformity test,” the board said.
As secondary issues in the appeal, the Privy Council had to consider the effect of a special arrangement agreed to by former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi, as he issued the authority to proceed (ATP) for the extradition proceedings.
Under the arrangement, Al-Rawi was alleged to have agreed to facilitate the extradition request if the US agreed to only prosecute Warner based on the charges it disclosed and on lesser charges that arose from the evidence it provided.
The Privy Council ruled that the purported arrangement, which is now subject to the probe initiated by Jeremie, was permissible under the legislation.
“The certificate provided by the Attorney General disclosed a speciality arrangement which complied with the Act and which the USA could be expected to honour,” they said.
The issue with the existence of the arrangement arose when the extradition proceedings resumed before former chief magistrate and current High Court Judge Maria Busby-Earle-Caddle.
She stayed the case and permitted Warner to raise the issue in a fresh case before the High Court, which was assigned to Justice Reid.
Warner is also being represented by Rishi Dass, SC, Sasha Bridgemohansingh, Anil Maraj and Aadam Hosein.
English (US) ·