Report of Commission of Enquiry re Dudus Coke's extradition state categorically on page 14 that Coke's Constitutional Rights were breached.
SUMMARY
Our view is that:
1. Sections 3,4 and 11 of the Interception of Communications Act provide the only means by which telecommunications may be tapped without such tapping amounting to a breach of Section 22 of the Constitution.
2. The proper construction of the said Sections 3, 4 and 11, and of the Act as a whole, suggests that it was not intended by Parliament for the Act to authorize disclosure of records of telecommunications to foreign governments or their agencies.
3. It follows that the Memoranda of Understanding, upon which the US Government relied, were not in keeping with the Act.
4. Accordingly, nothing done pursuant to or in reliance on the MOUs can be said to have been under the authority of the Act, and was therefore an exception to section 22 of the Constitution.
5. On this view, the supply of Coke's telephone records to the US government agencies was, therefore, a breach of his constitutional rights.
Our view is that:
1. Sections 3,4 and 11 of the Interception of Communications Act provide the only means by which telecommunications may be tapped without such tapping amounting to a breach of Section 22 of the Constitution.
2. The proper construction of the said Sections 3, 4 and 11, and of the Act as a whole, suggests that it was not intended by Parliament for the Act to authorize disclosure of records of telecommunications to foreign governments or their agencies.
3. It follows that the Memoranda of Understanding, upon which the US Government relied, were not in keeping with the Act.
4. Accordingly, nothing done pursuant to or in reliance on the MOUs can be said to have been under the authority of the Act, and was therefore an exception to section 22 of the Constitution.
5. On this view, the supply of Coke's telephone records to the US government agencies was, therefore, a breach of his constitutional rights.
Comment