Tweet
...But nuh suh 
For Whom Did The Bell Toll?
Published: Tuesday | September 6, 2011
Gordon Robinson
There's no joy in Tivoli; Mighty Dudus has struck out. For nine months, the Government declared extradition war against the United States; refused to sign an authority to proceed that even the Madantz commission agreed ought to have been signed immediately; postured about imaginary constitutional rights; waved red herrings in our faces; tried to discredit Supreme Court-ordered telephone intercepts; deceived and delayed; all for what? For whom?
It's a convenient time to review the steps Government took to avoid sending Dudus to the US.
1 The clear provisions of the Extradition Act compel the justice minister to authorise a fugitive's arrest and charge unless the request breaches the Extradition Act itself (which it did not). Instead, the Government disingenuously sought to rely on an alleged breach of another piece of legislation, the Interception of Communications Act (IOCA), to resist signing the authority to proceed.
Even the alleged breach of the IOCA was itself a phantom. The IOCA doesn't exclude any previously admissible evidence from any court proceedings. It creates an additional category of admissible evidence, namely telephone intercepts ordered by the Supreme Court. If that act is breached, it provides specific sanctions for such breach which don't include exclusion of any evidence. It's irrelevant to extradition.
2 When this artifice was exposed, the justice minister filed a frivolous lawsuit causing further delay. She named Portia Simpson Miller and Joseph M. Matalon (and Dudus) as defendants, despite these persons not having made any extradition request. She asked for a declaration that "where the minister is of the opinion" that the US has breached the extradition treaty, she's "under a duty" to deny the request. Can you imagine if the commencement of extradition proceedings was truly conditional upon such a subjective test as a politician's opinion? Why sue Dudus for an order benefiting Dudus?
Normally, when it's alleged a contracting party 'breached' a contract or treaty, it's the party alleged to be in breach that's sued. Yet this Government seemed willing to bring even the Supreme Court into disrepute, rather than take the straightforward step of signing the extradition authority.
3 Soon after the request was received, political and government emissaries were sent to seek US lobbyists' help with the avoidance of the extradition. This eventual admitted drug dealer and gunrunner was so important to the JLP that it voluntarily embarked upon a mission to do the Government's work with a view, according to its general secretary, to "assist in facilitating the opening of discussions between the US authorities and the Government of Jamaica, and thereby seek to resolve what had become a treaty dispute between the US and Jamaica".
Since there's a clear protocol for government-to-government discussions on treaty disputes, the JLP obviously felt GOJ wanted to go to bat for Dudus via informal discussions. Government officials willingly participated in this 'inappropriate' excursion.
4 Finally, when the inevitable could no longer be delayed or avoided, an unprecedented public announcement of Government's intention to sign was made hours in advance. Immediately, Dudus' supporters erected barricades around Tivoli Gardens and challenged security forces. On May 23, 2010, police stations came under gunfire; two were set ablaze and burnt to the ground.
Dudus' advantage?
At the end of this gestation period, a police-military 'invasion' of Tivoli resulted in more than 70 deaths, but no arrest of Dudus. We thought it was all in Dudus' defence. But, when cornered like a terrified, timid rat, hiding under a woman's wig, behind dark glasses and chauffeured by Reverend Al (then the National Transformation Programme director operating from the PM's office), Dudus raised none of these issues in extradition court. Subsequently, $80 million was spent on a circus-style enquiry where government officials denied their efforts were to benefit Dudus.
Eventually, he went out with a whimper, admitting guilt to narcotics smuggling, gunrunning and assault. His only flirtation with resistance was to try to exclude the telephone intercepts on the same spurious bases used by Government. In a flash, an American judge dismissed the bogus arguments. Dudus' focus seemed not on personal defence but to prevent the tapes being played. Why? Whose voices would we hear?
If all the obfuscation and obstruction wasn't for Dudus, for whom was the bell tolling for nine months? Most assume that the guilty plea means canaries are singing. Does it? Or was confession the only remaining path to a more important objective than personal defence, namely keeping the tapes private? If no Sankey is sung, will we ever know on whose account we endured such drama?
Peace and love.
For Whom Did The Bell Toll?
Published: Tuesday | September 6, 2011
Gordon Robinson
There's no joy in Tivoli; Mighty Dudus has struck out. For nine months, the Government declared extradition war against the United States; refused to sign an authority to proceed that even the Madantz commission agreed ought to have been signed immediately; postured about imaginary constitutional rights; waved red herrings in our faces; tried to discredit Supreme Court-ordered telephone intercepts; deceived and delayed; all for what? For whom?
It's a convenient time to review the steps Government took to avoid sending Dudus to the US.
1 The clear provisions of the Extradition Act compel the justice minister to authorise a fugitive's arrest and charge unless the request breaches the Extradition Act itself (which it did not). Instead, the Government disingenuously sought to rely on an alleged breach of another piece of legislation, the Interception of Communications Act (IOCA), to resist signing the authority to proceed.
Even the alleged breach of the IOCA was itself a phantom. The IOCA doesn't exclude any previously admissible evidence from any court proceedings. It creates an additional category of admissible evidence, namely telephone intercepts ordered by the Supreme Court. If that act is breached, it provides specific sanctions for such breach which don't include exclusion of any evidence. It's irrelevant to extradition.
2 When this artifice was exposed, the justice minister filed a frivolous lawsuit causing further delay. She named Portia Simpson Miller and Joseph M. Matalon (and Dudus) as defendants, despite these persons not having made any extradition request. She asked for a declaration that "where the minister is of the opinion" that the US has breached the extradition treaty, she's "under a duty" to deny the request. Can you imagine if the commencement of extradition proceedings was truly conditional upon such a subjective test as a politician's opinion? Why sue Dudus for an order benefiting Dudus?
Normally, when it's alleged a contracting party 'breached' a contract or treaty, it's the party alleged to be in breach that's sued. Yet this Government seemed willing to bring even the Supreme Court into disrepute, rather than take the straightforward step of signing the extradition authority.
3 Soon after the request was received, political and government emissaries were sent to seek US lobbyists' help with the avoidance of the extradition. This eventual admitted drug dealer and gunrunner was so important to the JLP that it voluntarily embarked upon a mission to do the Government's work with a view, according to its general secretary, to "assist in facilitating the opening of discussions between the US authorities and the Government of Jamaica, and thereby seek to resolve what had become a treaty dispute between the US and Jamaica".
Since there's a clear protocol for government-to-government discussions on treaty disputes, the JLP obviously felt GOJ wanted to go to bat for Dudus via informal discussions. Government officials willingly participated in this 'inappropriate' excursion.
4 Finally, when the inevitable could no longer be delayed or avoided, an unprecedented public announcement of Government's intention to sign was made hours in advance. Immediately, Dudus' supporters erected barricades around Tivoli Gardens and challenged security forces. On May 23, 2010, police stations came under gunfire; two were set ablaze and burnt to the ground.
Dudus' advantage?
At the end of this gestation period, a police-military 'invasion' of Tivoli resulted in more than 70 deaths, but no arrest of Dudus. We thought it was all in Dudus' defence. But, when cornered like a terrified, timid rat, hiding under a woman's wig, behind dark glasses and chauffeured by Reverend Al (then the National Transformation Programme director operating from the PM's office), Dudus raised none of these issues in extradition court. Subsequently, $80 million was spent on a circus-style enquiry where government officials denied their efforts were to benefit Dudus.
Eventually, he went out with a whimper, admitting guilt to narcotics smuggling, gunrunning and assault. His only flirtation with resistance was to try to exclude the telephone intercepts on the same spurious bases used by Government. In a flash, an American judge dismissed the bogus arguments. Dudus' focus seemed not on personal defence but to prevent the tapes being played. Why? Whose voices would we hear?
If all the obfuscation and obstruction wasn't for Dudus, for whom was the bell tolling for nine months? Most assume that the guilty plea means canaries are singing. Does it? Or was confession the only remaining path to a more important objective than personal defence, namely keeping the tapes private? If no Sankey is sung, will we ever know on whose account we endured such drama?
Peace and love.
Comment