JavaScript is disabled in your web browser or browser is too old to support JavaScript. Today almost all web pages contain JavaScript, a scripting programming language that runs on visitor's web browser. It makes web pages functional for specific purposes and if disabled for some reason, the content or the functionality of the web page can be limited or unavailable.

Saturday, July 12, 2025

Privy Council hears Warner’s lawsuit challenging extradition to US

by

1172 days ago
20220427
Jack Warner

Jack Warner

Roberto Codallo

Derek Achong

The Unit­ed King­dom-based Privy Coun­cil has be­gun to hear sub­mis­sions in for­mer Fi­fa ex­ec­u­tive and gov­ern­ment min­is­ter Jack Warn­er’s fi­nal ap­peal over the dis­missal of his law­suit chal­leng­ing the Unit­ed States (US) ex­tra­di­tion re­quest for him.

Lawyers rep­re­sent­ing Warn­er and the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al start­ed pre­sent­ing their sub­mis­sions be­fore Lords Hodge, Brig­gs, Ham­blen, Bur­rows and Sir De­clan Mor­gan dur­ing a hear­ing at the UK’s Supreme Court in Lon­don, Eng­land, on Wednes­day.

In the ap­peal, Warn­er is chal­leng­ing the de­ci­sions of for­mer High Court Judge and cur­rent Ap­peal Court Judge James Aboud and a three-mem­ber pan­el of the Court of Ap­peal to dis­miss his claim over the pro­ce­dure adopt­ed by the AG’s Of­fice in sign­ing off on the US’s re­quest for his ex­tra­di­tion, made in May 2015.

In his sub­stan­tive law­suit, Warn­er al­leged that this coun­try’s ex­tra­di­tion treaty with the US con­tra­dicts the Ex­tra­di­tion (Com­mon­wealth and For­eign Ter­ri­to­ries) Act. He is claim­ing that, in pass­ing the act, Par­lia­ment af­ford­ed cit­i­zens cer­tain pro­tec­tions which are ig­nored by the in­ter­na­tion­al treaty.

In his 50-page judg­ment, de­liv­ered in Sep­tem­ber 2017, High Court Judge James Aboud agreed that there were mi­nor in­con­sis­ten­cies be­tween the treaty and leg­is­la­tion but said Warn­er’s con­cerns were ex­ag­ger­at­ed and spec­u­la­tive.

Aboud al­so not­ed that Warn­er’s rights would be pro­tect­ed dur­ing the even­tu­al ex­tra­di­tion pro­ceed­ings be­fore Chief Mag­is­trate Maria Bus­by-Ear­le-Cad­dle, as she would have to ap­ply lo­cal laws to the charges against Warn­er al­leged in the US ex­tra­di­tion re­quest.

As a sec­ondary is­sue, Warn­er al­so com­plained that for­mer AG Faris Al-Rawi failed to give his at­tor­neys a fair op­por­tu­ni­ty to make rep­re­sen­ta­tions to him be­fore he signed off on the Au­thor­i­ty to Pro­ceed, which was re­quired to kick off the pro­ceed­ings in the mag­is­trates’ court.

Aboud ruled that Warn­er did not have a right to be con­sult­ed.

In Ju­ly, 2019, Ap­pel­late Judges Gre­go­ry Smith, Prakash Moo­sai and An­dre Des Vi­gnes up­held Aboud’s judge­ment. 

Pre­sent­ing sub­mis­sions on Warn­er’s be­half yes­ter­day, Se­nior Coun­sel Fyard Ho­sein stat­ed that the treaty be­tween this coun­try and the US was not in con­for­mi­ty with the ex­tra­di­tion leg­is­la­tion, as it had the po­ten­tial to in­fringe fun­da­men­tal con­sti­tu­tion­al rights. 

“This is not a case of pro­por­tion­al­i­ty or ra­tio­nal­i­ty...It is whether it is le­gal or not le­gal,” Ho­sein said. 

Ho­sein sug­gest­ed that while the ex­ec­u­tive had the pow­er to en­ter in­to in­ter­na­tion­al treaties as part of its for­eign pol­i­cy, such ac­tiv­i­ty should not breach the rights of cit­i­zens or re­move par­lia­men­tary sov­er­eign­ty. 

In her sub­mis­sions, Warn­er’s oth­er at­tor­ney, Clare Mont­gomery, QC, sug­gest­ed that Al-Rawi act­ed un­fair­ly to­ward Warn­er. 

“The po­si­tion is that the process adopt­ed by the AG was con­spic­u­ous­ly un­fair and re­quired a prop­er op­por­tu­ni­ty to make rep­re­sen­ta­tions and prop­er dis­clo­sure to make those rep­re­sen­ta­tions,” Mont­gomery said. 

Re­spond­ing to the sub­mis­sions, James Lewis, QC, who led the State’s le­gal team, sug­gest­ed that the court did not have the re­mit to con­sid­er the pro­vi­sions of the treaty as it was not in­cor­po­rat­ed in­to do­mes­tic law. 

“Courts usu­al­ly do not thread on for­eign pol­i­cy is­sues,” Lewis said. 

He sug­gest­ed that as AG, Al-Rawi had the dis­cre­tion to de­ter­mine whether the treaty and leg­is­la­tion were in con­for­mi­ty. 

Lewis is sched­uled to con­tin­ue his sub­mis­sions when the ap­peal re­sumes on Thurs­day. 

Warn­er is al­so be­ing rep­re­sent­ed by Rishi Dass and Anil Maraj.

Warn­er’s case

Warn­er, 74, a for­mer Fi­fa vice-pres­i­dent, is ac­cused of 12 charges re­lat­ed to fraud, rack­e­teer­ing and en­gag­ing in il­le­gal wire trans­fers.

The of­fences are al­leged to have tak­en place in the Unit­ed States, T&T and oth­er ju­ris­dic­tions be­tween 1990 and June 2011, when Warn­er quit Fi­fa.

He is one of sev­er­al se­nior ex­ec­u­tives of world foot­ball’s gov­ern­ing body who were in­dict­ed on a se­ries of charges af­ter an in­ves­ti­ga­tion in­to cor­rup­tion in foot­ball, con­duct­ed by the US Fed­er­al Bu­reau of In­ves­ti­ga­tion (FBI) and De­part­ment of Jus­tice.

Sev­er­al of his for­mer col­leagues have plead­ed guilty to the charges and have been sen­tenced.

The ex­tra­di­tion pro­ceed­ings against Warn­er have been stayed pend­ing the out­come of Warn­er’s nov­el le­gal chal­lenge. 


Related articles

Sponsored

Weather

PORT OF SPAIN WEATHER

Sponsored