Tweet
The AG had taken Dudus case to the the supreme court
Peter the Great objected because he knew that the MOUs were illegal. No worries Peter, you are still out hero, you actions cut the daily murder rate.
Dudus was never served with a summons because the no one had an address for him. The Security minister could not tell the AG where to serve the Dudus warrant because he did not know much about the Dudus and certainly did not know that he had an office in Tivol and probably did did not know about his uptown residence which was published in the media.
The information Minister could not help out the AG because he did not know much about Dudus either.
KINGSTON, Jamaica--Dr. Peter Phillips, the Opposition's strongest voice on the stand-off between Kingston and Washington over the extradition request of Tivoli Gardens strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, last Thursday rubbished the Government's decision to take the matter to the Supreme Court, while describing the move as an attempt to "muddy the water" and cause confusion.
Phillips' comments come as Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller and her lawyers mull a response to the court action, which names her and Joseph Matalon, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) president, as defendants in the case set for hearing on May 5.
In the recently filed action, which is seeking declarations on the power of Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne in dealing with extradition matters, Simpson Miller and Matalon have been named defendants because they publicly questioned the justice minister's authority to decline the extradition request made by the US last August.
Phillips - who has emerged as the Opposition's unrelenting spokesman on the Government's failure to process the extradition request for Cooke to face drug- and gun-running charges - continued his broadside last week.
"Overall, I don't think that this changes my basic contention that in [extradition matters] the issues involving evidence belong before the Magistrate's Court as set out in statute. To me, it's just an attempt by the prime minister to confound the issue. It's a smoke screen, an attempt to muddy the water and to confuse people," asserted Phillips in an interview with the Observer.
"There is no reason why this [extradition request] should be treated any different from the 19-odd that the [Government] extradited last year. There is no reason in law," added Phillips. "It's an attempt to pretend to go to the Court without going to the Court in the way that they should."
The decision to take the matter to the High Court was made by Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who has argued that the evidence submitted by the Americans against Coke was gathered in breach of Jamaican law.
Among the declarations sought by Lightbourne, who is the claimant in the suit, are that:
* the justice minister has the authority and discretion under the Extradition Act, in particular sections 8 and 9, to decide whether or not to issue an authority to proceed after receiving an extradition request from an Approved State;
* in the exercise of her authority and discretion, the claimant is entitled to consider whether the evidence furnished with the request is sufficient to justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the accused person under section 9;
* the minister is entitled and under a duty to decline to issue an authority to proceed where the extradition of the accused person could not lawfully be made, or would not in fact be made in accordance with the provision of the Extradition Act; and
* that the evidence supplied in support of the extradition request was obtained in contravention of the Constitution of Jamaica; the Interception of Communications Act; and orders of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Jamaica.
Contacted Thursday, Matalon told the Observer that himself and the PSOJ have sought legal advice and that a response would be decided on.
But legal luminary, Lord Anthony Gifford, QC, said Matalon and Simpson Miller are not bound by law to acknowledge the court action as they have no interest at stake.
"...Their interest is not affected. They are quite free to acknowledge if they want. They are not bound by law to respond. If something was being done to affect [them] then obviously they should respond, but the declarations [sought] don't affect their interest," Gifford told the Observer.
Should the two choose not to respond, the case would proceed without them. ~Jamaica Observer
Peter the Great objected because he knew that the MOUs were illegal. No worries Peter, you are still out hero, you actions cut the daily murder rate.
Dudus was never served with a summons because the no one had an address for him. The Security minister could not tell the AG where to serve the Dudus warrant because he did not know much about the Dudus and certainly did not know that he had an office in Tivol and probably did did not know about his uptown residence which was published in the media.
The information Minister could not help out the AG because he did not know much about Dudus either.
KINGSTON, Jamaica--Dr. Peter Phillips, the Opposition's strongest voice on the stand-off between Kingston and Washington over the extradition request of Tivoli Gardens strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, last Thursday rubbished the Government's decision to take the matter to the Supreme Court, while describing the move as an attempt to "muddy the water" and cause confusion.
Phillips' comments come as Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller and her lawyers mull a response to the court action, which names her and Joseph Matalon, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) president, as defendants in the case set for hearing on May 5.
In the recently filed action, which is seeking declarations on the power of Justice Minister Dorothy Lightbourne in dealing with extradition matters, Simpson Miller and Matalon have been named defendants because they publicly questioned the justice minister's authority to decline the extradition request made by the US last August.
Phillips - who has emerged as the Opposition's unrelenting spokesman on the Government's failure to process the extradition request for Cooke to face drug- and gun-running charges - continued his broadside last week.
"Overall, I don't think that this changes my basic contention that in [extradition matters] the issues involving evidence belong before the Magistrate's Court as set out in statute. To me, it's just an attempt by the prime minister to confound the issue. It's a smoke screen, an attempt to muddy the water and to confuse people," asserted Phillips in an interview with the Observer.
"There is no reason why this [extradition request] should be treated any different from the 19-odd that the [Government] extradited last year. There is no reason in law," added Phillips. "It's an attempt to pretend to go to the Court without going to the Court in the way that they should."
The decision to take the matter to the High Court was made by Prime Minister Bruce Golding, who has argued that the evidence submitted by the Americans against Coke was gathered in breach of Jamaican law.
Among the declarations sought by Lightbourne, who is the claimant in the suit, are that:
* the justice minister has the authority and discretion under the Extradition Act, in particular sections 8 and 9, to decide whether or not to issue an authority to proceed after receiving an extradition request from an Approved State;
* in the exercise of her authority and discretion, the claimant is entitled to consider whether the evidence furnished with the request is sufficient to justify the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the accused person under section 9;
* the minister is entitled and under a duty to decline to issue an authority to proceed where the extradition of the accused person could not lawfully be made, or would not in fact be made in accordance with the provision of the Extradition Act; and
* that the evidence supplied in support of the extradition request was obtained in contravention of the Constitution of Jamaica; the Interception of Communications Act; and orders of a Judge of the Supreme Court of Jamaica.
Contacted Thursday, Matalon told the Observer that himself and the PSOJ have sought legal advice and that a response would be decided on.
But legal luminary, Lord Anthony Gifford, QC, said Matalon and Simpson Miller are not bound by law to acknowledge the court action as they have no interest at stake.
"...Their interest is not affected. They are quite free to acknowledge if they want. They are not bound by law to respond. If something was being done to affect [them] then obviously they should respond, but the declarations [sought] don't affect their interest," Gifford told the Observer.
Should the two choose not to respond, the case would proceed without them. ~Jamaica Observer
so if the documents are important to nat'l security...why buss dem in di fuss place? why give Phipps a copy?? .. is ongly wen an ansa gwine mek dem look foolfool dem claim nat'l security...lol
Comment