‘Presumption of innocence’ was violated for Samuel ’90’ Knowles when he was included in a United States list of ‘foreign narcotics kingpins’ that included Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden and Slobodan Milosevic, lawyers argued on Monday.
Knowles is wanted for alleged drug smuggling into Florida from the Bahamas, outlined in a 1995-1996 U.S. indictment.
Appearing before Justice Hugh Small, Knowles’ attorneys argued that he should be released on the grounds that he would not receive a fair trial in the United States.
In October 2001, he was committed for extradition by Magistrate Carolita Bethel.
However, Queen’s Counsel Edward Fitzgerald said that on Feb. 5, 2002, Justice Jon Isaacs ordered Knowles’ release on a habeas corpus application.
The attorney submitted that the order made by Justice Isaacs remained unaffected by the ruling of the Privy Council handed down on Feb. 10, and a prior decision in 2003 by the Court of Appeal (COA) dismissing Knowles’ appeals.
In addition, he said, as the order from the Privy Council had not been formally signed by Her Majesty the Queen, the matter remained unresolved.
After Knowles was successful before Justice Isaacs, the U.S. and Superintendent of Prisons appealed to the COA, that then overturned the Justice Isaacs’ ruling.
But the risk now, Fitzgerald argued is that if Knowles was returned to the United States, he would be denied a fair trial because of his nationality, particularly as he is not an American citizen.
Specifically, section 7 (1)(C) of the relevant Order states that extradition is prohibited if an accused’s personal liberty was compromised by questions of race, religion, nationality or political opinions.
The attorney submitted that because U.S. President George Bush designated Mr. Knowles as a “foreign narcotics kingpin” in May 2002, the case was now prejudiced. He argued further that the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Act targeted persons whom the United States believed to be significant foreign narcotics traffickers. Knowles was placed on the list with persons such as Saddam Hussein, Osama Bin Laden and Slobodan Milosevic.
Moreover, Fitzgerald said, U.S. citizens were exempt from that designation. In this view, he said the Act authorized the President to impose sanctions on determined foreign narcotic traffickers who threatened national security, foreign policy or the economy of the United States.
The President is required to report such findings to a special congressional committee, by June 1 of each year, he said. Persons advising the President on that matter include the Secretary of the Treasury, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Defence, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
Additionally, he said, the primary effect of the Act upon U.S. citizens and persons within that country, was that they were prohibited from “engaging in any transaction or dealing in property or interest in property of designated persons and from engaging in any transaction that evades or avoids the prohibition of the Act.” The criminal penalties carry up to 10 years imprisonment for individuals and up to a $10 million dollar fine for entities that violate the Act, according to a sworn affidavit by U.S. attorney Bruce Malloy.
On the issue of abuse of process, Fitzgerald said that President Bush’s statements were not made until May 2002. The COA heard the appeal case in April 2002 and Justice Isaacs handed down his ruling in February 2002. Thus, he said, he had no knowledge of the operation of the kingpin designation process, but, on the merits of the case, the President’s public prejudice of Mr. Knowles’ guilt, despite the fact of ongoing criminal proceedings against him, was “clearly discriminatory”.
The presumption of innocence factor was violated by the U.S. President, the QC argued.
Additionally, he said, Knowles was handicapped because the foreign kingpin designation would likely affect his ability to retain counsel.
The case resumed at 10 a.m. today.
Jimenita Swain, The Nassau Guardian
