Jamaica News: Bruce Golden standing his ground against Uncle Sam 'We Reject US Claims'

Prime Minister Bruce Golding's statement to Parliament on the United States extradition request for Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.
THE GOVERNMENT has taken note of the United States Narcotics Control Strategy Report of March 2010. The report, while acknowledging that cooperation between Jamaican and US law-enforcement agencies remains strong, reflects negatively on the effectiveness of our efforts to combat organised crime, drug trafficking and corruption, as well as the delays in enacting legislation to strengthen these efforts.

The report is being carefully examined and a detailed statement will be made in the Senate by the minister of national security on Friday.

The report includes prominent references to the Government's treatment of extradition requests and, in particular, to the request for the extradition of Christopher Coke, and it is to these issues that I wish to speak today. The Government has refrained from making any detailed public statement in relation to this matter because of the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between Jamaica and the US relating to confidentiality, a position reaffirmed in the several meetings between both sides on this particular matter. However, in view of the statements contained in the Narcotics Control Strategy Report, I am obliged to make this statement this afternoon, and the US authorities have been so advised.

Abnormal procedures

The request for the extradition of Coke was received on August 25, 2009. There were aspects of the case and the procedures employed that were abnormal and the Government, consistent with the provisions of the Extradition Treaty, sought clarifica-tion and additional information. In most instances, however, these peculiarities would not, by them-selves, prevent the request from being proceeded with.

In one important respect, however, it was found to be in violation of the law. The Interception of Communi-cations Act makes strict provisions for the manner in which intercepted communications may be obtained and disclosed. The evidence supporting the extradition request in this particular case violated those provisions. So serious an offence is this violation that the penalty provided by law is a maximum fine of five million dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or to both such fine and imprisonment.

The law further requires that for intercepted communication to be admissible in any criminal proceedings it must have been obtained, disclosed and used in accordance with these provisions. This was not done in this case. This was highly irregular.

Open discussions

The Jamaican Govern-ment, rather than summarily refusing the request, dis-cussed with the US authorities the breaches that had occurred, which made it impos-sible for the minis-ter, being aware of such breaches, to issue the authority to proceed. These discus-sions involved several meetings both here and in Washington, DC. At a meeting in Washington in December, where the legal position was fully outlined by the Jamaican authorities, the US authorities undertook to consider the issues and requested time to do so. Their response, received only yesterday, has not altered its position. Ever since the receipt of this extradition request, the Jamaican Government has remained constantly engaged with the US authorities on the matter.

In an effort to overcome the impediment cited above, the Jamaican Government indicated to the US autho-rities that if other evidence existed, the procurement and disclosure of which were not in violation of Jamaican law, the minister would be prepared to accept that evidence and issue the necessary authorityto proceed. No such evidence has up to now been presented.

The US Narcotics Control Strategy Report accuses the Govern-ment of "unfounded allegations ques-tioning US com-pliance with the Mutual Legal Assis-tance Treaty and Jamaican law", and has questioned the Government's commitment to law-enforcement cooperation with the US.

We respectfully reject these assertions. The minister of justice, in authorising extradition proceedings, has a duty to satisfy herself that they conform to the provisions of Jamaican law. As minister and, especially, as attorney general, she cannot authorise processes which she knows to be in violation of Jamaican law.

Since this Government assumed office in September 2007, we have received 26 extradition requests from the United States. The mi-nister has issued the authority to proceed in 13 of those cases. In the cases of nine, these requests were made through provisional warrants, which went directly to the courts and, therefore, were not subject to the minister's authorisation.

One request was based on a provisional warrant which has not yet been executed, as the subject has not yet been found. One request was withdrawn as the subject was subsequently arrested overseas. Apart from the Coke case, additional information has been sought in respect of one request, and the last request, which was received on December 7, 2009, has not yet been submitted to the minister for a decision.

We value the cooperation that has long existed between Jamaica and the US, especially in the area of law enforcement, because of the links between criminals in Jamaica and others in the US. We are firmly committed to the treaties and agreements between our two countries that underpin that cooperation.

We have assured the US authorities of our full support in all extradition and other matters consistent with our obligations under these treaties and agreements and the upholding of Jamaican law.

Golding claims US evidence against Coke illegally obtained

PRIME MINISTER Bruce Golding has accused the United States (US) government of using illegally intercepted telephone conversations for the basis of drug and weapons trafficking charges against west Kingston strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke.

Golding, in a statement to Parliament yesterday and responding to a scathing report from the US Department of State a day earlier, declared the Jamaican Government would not extradite one of its citizens without being provided with a stronger case.

"I know that perhaps it is politically expedient to say it is Coke. Or it could have been Matthews Lane strongman Zekes (Donald Phipps)," Golding told the House of Representatives. "Or it could be any of these. I am not defending the wrongdoing of any person but, if I have to pay a political price for it, I am going to uphold a position that constitutional rights do not begin at Liguanea."

Liguanea is the base of the US Embassy in St Andrew.

On Monday, the annual International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, released by the US Department of State, said the handling of the August request for Coke's extradition "marked a dramatic change in (the Jamaican Government's) previous cooperation on extradition".

The State Department said the delay in extraditing Coke, as well as a temporary suspension in the processing of all other pending requests, raised "serious questions" about the Jamaican Government's commitment to combating transnational crime.

However, Golding yesterday rejected the assertion, arguing his Government could not ignore breaches in the Coke case.

"The Interception of Communications Act makes strict provisions for the manner in which intercepted communications may be obtained and disclosed," the prime minister said. "The evidence supporting the extradition request in this particular case violated those provisions."

He added, "For intercepted communication to be admissible in any criminal proceedings, it must have been obtained, disclosed and used in accordance with these provisions. This was not done in this case. This was highly irregular."

Golding said that, under the circumstances, Attorney General and Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne had a duty to protect the constitutional rights of Coke and not extradite him.

"If the minister, having examined it, recognises that it is supported by evidence that was illegally obtained, disclosed or used, but still proceeds to sign it, she should immediately sign one other document - her resignation," Golding said.

The prime minister stressed that since his administration assumed office in September 2007 it has received 26 extradition requests from the US, 16 of which have been signed by the justice minister.

Responding to Golding's statement, Opposition members Peter Bunting and Dr Peter Phillips questioned why the attorney general would not simply sign the document and allow the courts to determine the merits of the Government's concerns.

Phillips said the structure of the extradition law requires that there be a procedural check by the minister with responsibility for justice, but matters regarding the quality of justice should be dealt with by the court, as well as the legality of evidence.

"There is a reserve power usually considered at the end, not at the beginning of the proceedings, to ensure that there is not the risk of prejudicing hearings held in the jurisdiction that is requesting the extradition of the person," Phillips said.

Golding responded that "it was not intended by this Parliament when the legislation was framed that the minister was to be some lubricated conduit through which extradition requests were to automatically pass".

"The minister has to satisfy herself, or himself, that the processes that were used in submitting the request are in conformity with Jamaican law. When the matter goes before the court, the court has the responsibility to determine whether a prima facie case has been made out sufficient to ground the extradition of the subject."

Coke, who is the reputed leader of Tivoli Gardens, a section of West Kingston represented in Parliament by Golding, has been indicted by a grand jury in the United States.

Yesterday, the prime minister noted that the identity of the co-conspirators named in the indictment are unknown. He said statements supporting an extradition request should not be veiled.

He also suggested that the wiretapping of Coke's telephone conversations was not done by the United States, but was instead transported to that jurisdiction to be used against him.