Chronology
August 2009
1. On the 25th August, 2009 the Government of United States of America by Diplomatic Note No. 296 requested the extradition of Christopher Coke pursuant to the Extradition Treaty between the Government of the United States of America (US) and the Government of Jamaica (GOJ).
September 2009
2. The GOJ, as it was entitled to do under the Treaty, request additional information about the evidence and charges outlined in the authenticated document, by Diplomatic Note dated September 18, 2009. The additional information sought were, inter alia, the identity of the cooperating witnesses, other evidence (if any) which was presented to the Grand Jury, independent evidence (preferably scientific) that the substance alleged was indeed cocaine and whether Coke has ever visited the US. The GOJ’s preliminary view was that the evidence presented was not sufficient to justify the issue of warrant for the arrest of Mr. Coke as required by the Act (S8 (2)).
October 2009
3. The US responded by Diplomatic Note dated October 2, 2009 stating that no further information would be provided and urged the GOJ to place the matter in the local courts.
4. The GOJ by Diplomatic Note dated October 30, 2009 sought further information as to how the US obtained possession of ‘intercepted communications’ which were the subject of an Order by the Jamaican Supreme Court: in particular, was a request made under the provisions of the Mutual Assistance (Criminal Matters) Act (MACMA).
December 2009
5. At the request of the US, representatives of the GOJ and the US met at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade on December 1, 2009. The US was represented by the Charge’d Affaires and a representative of the US Embassy. The GOJ was represented by the Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade and the Hon. Minister of Justice, the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade and the Solicitor General. At this meeting the GOJ outlined the legal concerns it had about the request. The US delivered a letter of even date in response to the GOJ’s letter of October 30, 2009 (paragraph 4 supra). This letter stated that MACMA was not the exclusive means of obtaining such evidence and that the evidence had been obtained in accordance with the mutual understandings arrived at between the Jamaican and United States law enforcement authorities; and it again urged the GOJ to place the matter before a committing magistrate. The meeting ended with an agreement that as there were several legal issues raised which could not be dealt with competently by the representatives of the US, it would be best if the legal representatives of Jamaica meet with legal representatives of the State Department in Washington DC with a view to discussing the legal issues. The Charge’d Affaires agreed to arrange this meeting.
6. A joint lawyers meeting was held on the 17th December, 2009 between legal representatives of the GOJ and legal representatives of the US State and Justice Departments. At the end of this meeting both parties agreed that each party would examine the legal issues with a view to seeing how they could be resolved. The agreement, as reflected in a Note prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, was as follows:-
- Solicitor General, Douglas Leys and Director, Mary Ellen Warlow would remain in direct fluid communication.
- The Department of Justice, USA would review its records in order to identify the Jamaican source by which the wire tap evidence against Coke was conveyed to the United States and inform the Solicitor General.
- For its own part the Ministry of Justice, Jamaica would resume its own internal investigation with a view to determining which office authorized the transfer of the intercept evidence to the USA.
- The Department of Justice would advise the Solicitor General as to whether there was evidence other than that acquired by wire tap which could successfully be brought against Christopher Coke in Court.
January 2010
7. In early January 2010, the Solicitor General informed the Charge d’ Affaires of the US Embassy that further investigation had not revealed that there was authorization for the transfer of the wire tap evidence to the US Government as there was no record of a modification of the Court Order. Further, that he had written to the Commissioner of Police and requested that he commence formal investigations into the matter.
8. On January 18, 2010, the Solicitor General sent an email to Ms. Mary Ellen Warlow, Director in the office of International Affairs United States Department of Criminal Justice - pursuant to an agreement arising out of the December 17, 2009 meeting - seeking her views on his suggested text for a joint press release between the US and GOJ on the December meeting. There was no response from the Ms. Warlow save for an out of office reply on the 9th of February 2010 sending a copy of the email to the Charge d’ Affaires.
February 2010
9. On February 22, 2010, Ms. Warlow replied to the effect that she was out of office and on return had not seen my email as she had inadvertently missed it among the many others she had received. It was agreed that given the passage of time the press release would no longer have been meaningful. There was no mention of the other issues that were raised in the meeting of the 17th December (supra).
March 2010
10. At the request of the US, a meeting was held on March 1, 2010 at Jamaica House. The US was represented by the Charge’ d Affairs, and Mr. Don Baker a representative of the Embassy. The GOJ was represented by the Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, the Hon. Attorney General, the Solicitor General and the Mr. Lackston Robinson - Deputy Solicitor General. At that meeting the progress of the extradition matter was discussed.
April 2010
11. As a follow up there was a meeting with the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade and the US State Department on April 12, 2010 in Washington DC. The meeting discussed the possibility of public unrest and dislocation of the Government’s economic programme having regard to the timing of the extradition request. This was discussed in the context of Section 16 of MACMA which mandates the refusal of a request if compliance would prejudice “other essential public interests of Jamaica”. The fact that over thirty (30) persons were killed by the incursion into Tivoli Gardens of the Security Forces in 1997 and 2001 underscored the level of concern at the timing of the request.
12. This meeting was followed by a letter dated April 14, 2010 in which the US reiterated its earlier position that the evidence submitted in the original request was sufficient to proceed, since prior cases of similar evidentiary strength had resulted in successful extraditions to the United States.
13. Following on this letter on the 14th April 2010, I filed proceedings in the Supreme Court requesting, inter alia, a declaration as to the matters I was entitled to take into account in exercising my discretion to issue the authority to proceed. The parties to the suit were Mr. Christopher Coke, Mr. Joseph Mayer Matalon, President of the PSOJ, the Honourable Portia Simpson Miller were joined as parties, based on their public expressions of disagreement with the way the request was being handled: this provided them with an opportunity to present their views to the Court as to how the matter could be better handled.
14. On April 14, 2010, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade notified the US of the aforementioned proceedings and invited its participation in the proceedings.
15. On May 4, 2010 the US, by letter set out its position on the various issues raised in the Suit and asked that the letter be brought to the attention of the Court by the GOJ. The letter was received on 5th May, 2010, the morning of the Court proceedings, and could not be presented to the Court in that form.
May 2010
16. On May 5, 2010, the matter was heard in the Supreme Court before the Honourable Mr. Justice Roy Jones. He delivered judgment on May 11, 2010 removing, with my agreement, Mr. Joseph Mayer Matalon from the suit, as well as the Hon. Portia Simpson Miller on the basis of submissions, that she could not, inter alia, assist the process and that to have made her party was a breach of her right to freedom of speech. The suit was subsequently withdrawn.
17. On May 17, 2010 having gauged the growing level of public mistrust and the expressed intention of key institutions/organizations not to interact with the Government if the extradition matter remained unresolved, I decided that the looming public interest concerns compelled the exercise of my executive discretion to resolve the matter. Consequently, I advised the Cabinet that I would be signing the authority to proceed and did so on the 18th May, 2010. The Resident Magistrate for the parish of St. Andrew then issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Christopher Coke.
No comments:
Post a Comment