Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson has recommended that the minister of foreign affairs sign a warrant of surrender, which would clear the way for accused drug kingpin Samuel ‘Ninety’ Knowles to be extradited to the United States.
But Minister Fred Mitchell is out of the country, and Acting Foreign Affairs Minister Alfred Sears up to yesterday had not signed such an order.
In fact, Minister Sears told The Bahama Journal that he had not been alerted about the matter and therefore could not make a comment.
The Knowles matter is today the most highly watched extradition case in the country with some observers waiting to see what move authorities would make in this regard.
The London-based Privy Council recently dismissed an order for Knowles to be extradited to the United States, but upheld a similar order for him to be sent there to face drug-related charges.
The high court made the separate rulings because Knowlesﾒs attorneys had filed two separate appeals since he is fighting two extradition requests.
The first was made on March 26, 2001, months after a federal grand jury in the United States indicted Knowles and others on counts of conspiracy to possess cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to import the same drugs in the United States between November 11, 1997 and December 8, 2000.
The second request was made on February 6, 2002 and was founded on an indictment preferred by a federal grand jury on May 25, 2000. It charged Knowles and others with counts of conspiracy to smuggle cocaine into the United States between June 1995 and 1997.
In the first instance, the Privy Council considered whether the Court of Appeal was right to conclude on May 11, 2005 that it had jurisdiction to entertain the governmentﾒs appeal against an order made by then Supreme Court Justice Hugh Small clearing the way for Knowles to be released.
On June 23, 2004, Justice Small rejected an objection strongly urged by the government that Knowlesﾒs application to be released from prison was an abuse of the courtﾒs process.
He ruled that the application succeed, which effectively discharged an earlier order from Magistrate Carolita Bethel committing Knowles to await extradition to the United States.
The government quickly appealed against the decision on the ground that the judge had no jurisdiction to hear the application since it “constituted an abuse of the process of the court”.
Knowlesﾒs attorneys then submitted that the Court of Appeal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. But on May 11, 2005, the Court accepted the governmentﾒs argument on jurisdiction and on the merits of the kingpin argument and rejected Knowlesﾒs.
It meant that Magistrate Bethelﾒs committal order was reinstated, clearing the way for Knowles to be extradited.
way of background, the accused drug dealer, who is imprisoned at Her Majestyﾒs Prison, contended that he might, if extradited to the United States, be denied a fair trial.
The Privy Council ruling, delivered by Lord Bingham of Cornhill, indicated that he based his contention on the fact that on May 31, 2002 US President George Bush formally and publicly designated him a drug “kingpin”.
Those so designated were under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act 1999 denied access to the US financial system, and US companies and individuals were prohibited from entering into any trading or professional transaction with a designated person unless licensed by the government to do so.
Attorneys for Knowles argued that his designation as a foreign drug kingpin was tantamount to a declaration of his guilt by the highest authority in the government; that this had already been published and could be found on a government website; that his extradition and trial would be bound to attract very considerable publicity; that the jurors at his trial might well know or learn of his designation; that his trial would not be fair if a juror were prejudiced by such knowledge; and that this prejudice derived from his nationality, since the Act did not apply to US citizens.
The Privy Council ruled that the May 11, 2005 decision of the Court of Appeal should be set aside. The high court said the Court of Appeal should not have addressed the merits and demerits of the kingpin argument.
“Counsel reviewed these in argument before the Board,” the ruling said, “but as it was wrong for the Court of Appeal to explore these matters, so it would be wrong for the Board to do so.”
The Privy Council ruled that, “the judgeﾒs order should be restored”, referring to the order of Justice Small, which cleared the way for Knowlesﾒs release.
However, the Privy Council noted that, “Whether it will lead to [Knowlesﾒs] release will depend on the resolution of the second issue.”
That second issue had to do with the correctness of the Court of Appealﾒs dismissal of Knowlesﾒs appeal against the Magistrate Bethelﾒs order for him to be committed for extradition, based on the second extradition request.
Knowles contended that the proceedings to extradite him pursuant to the second request are an abuse of the process of the court.
The factual foundation of this complaint is that the second extradition request was based on a grand jury indictment preferred on a date earlier than that of the indictment on which the first request was based, and relating to earlier events.
“[Knowles] faces an uphill task in seeking to dislodge the conclusion on three courts below that the governmentﾒs conduct in proceeding on the second extradition request was not abusive,” the Privy Councilﾒs ruling said, adding that it would be “very slow” to intervene in the absence of a clear legal misdirection.
The Privy Council said it “finds none”.
Knowles also contended that the accusation made against him in the second extradition request is not made in good faith in the interests of justice.
“The facts relied on to support this complaint are much the same as those relied on as evidence of abuse,” the ruling said. “The courts below found nothing to support this complaint, nor does the Board.”
The Privy Council ruled that the Court of Appealﾒs judgment on April 28, 2004 on the second request should be dismissed and the committal order made on that request must stand, meaning Knowles could be extradited.
The high court, noted, however, that an outstanding order before the Supreme Court seeking Knowlesﾒs release relating to the second request was still outstanding. This matter refers to his challenge against the kingpin label.
By: Candia Dames, The Bahama Journal
