Extradition Appeal Dismissed:
By Quincy Parker -
Nassau, Bahamas:


The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has laid out the reasons underpinning the high court’s decision to dismiss the appeal against extradition for seven Bahamian men facing drug charges in the United States.

The dismissal of the appeal on July 24, 2007 cleared the way for committal proceedings of the men to proceed without further delay.

Trevor Thomas Roberts, Devroy Moss, Sheldon Athelston Moore, Lionel and Linden Deal, Shanto Curry and Gordon Newbold were arrested in 2004 following an extradition request by the United States. The men were suspected of having committed drug trafficking offences.

After laying out the arguments presented by Maurice Glinton, the law lords dismissed them quite bluntly.

"Their lordships are of the opinion that there is no merit in any of Mr. Glinton’s arguments," the ruling said. "There has already been an inordinate delay in these cases, due to the time that disposing of the arguments has occupied as first instance and on appeal.

"They respectfully agree with the Court of Appeal that the committal proceedings should continue as expeditiously as possible."

According to the committee, Mr. Glinton’s appeal questioned whether the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was vested with the necessary authority to conclude the Extradition Treaty with the U.S. on behalf of The Bahamas, and whether the treaty had Parliament’s approval.

The appeal also questioned whether the appellants’ rights under certain articles of the Bahamas’ Constitution having to do with freedom of the person had been violated by their detention to await a decision on extradition; whether they were lawfully arrested, and whether they’d had a fair hearing in the Court of Appeal.

On behalf of the Judicial Committee, Lord Hope of Craighead wrote that the committee didn’t accept Mr. Glinton’s argument that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had no power to enter into treaties, or that even if the minister had power to ratify the treaty, it hadn’t been approved by Parliament either before or after the event.

"Their lordships find no substance in either or these arguments," he said. "They agree with Justice Jon Isaacs that Article 77 of the Constitution permits the governor general to delegate his executive authority to a minister of the government."

Article 77 provides for the governor general to delegate his authority with responsibility for any business of the government to the prime minister or any minister including the administration of any government department.

Lord Hope wrote that in 1989, the governor general had vested responsibility for extradition and treaty succession in the Minister of Foreign Affairs, making it unnecessary for the governor general to "describe in detail each and every act that the minister might do within his area of responsibility."

"It follows that the then Minister of Foreign Affairs was vested with the necessary authority to conclude the (extradition) treaty with the United States of America on behalf of The Bahamas on the date when the treaty was entered into," he said.

"The argument that approval be Parliament was necessary before the treaty was ratified is misconceived," Lord Hope added.

"The right to enter into treaties is one of the prerogative powers of the Crown. No one other than the queen can conclude a treaty. In practice, in the case of The Bahamas, this prerogative power is exercisable on behalf of Her Majesty by the governor general or by a minister acting under the governor general’s authority," he explained.

"The governor general does not require the advice or consent of the legislature to authorize the signature or ratification of a treaty, nor does a minister to whom authority has been delegated by the governor general. The signature and ratification by the minister was all that was needed to give effect to the treaty in international law."

The law lord also pointed out that two orders giving effect to the treaty in domestic law had been laid before Parliament in 1994, and approved.

"Approval to the Orders having been given by Parliament, it follows that the treaty was enforceable in domestic law when the appellants were arrested," Lord Hope wrote. "Mr. Glinton’s arguments to the contrary are without foundation and must be rejected."

Dealing with Mr. Glinton’s submissions on the Constitutional grounds, the Privy Councilor wrote that the lawyer’s argument – that the septet, as Bahamian citizens, had a right not to be deprived of their liberty for the purpose of effecting their extradition – was based in part on a misreading of two articles of The Bahamas’ Constitution.

Article 19(1) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of his liberty, except as authorized by law in the listed cases. Paragraph ‘g’ is one of those cases listed, and it provides first for a person to be deprived of his liberty in order to effect his extradition, and second, for a non-Bahamian to be excluded from specified area of The Bahamas but only for the purpose of expulsion, extradition or other lawful removal.

"Mr. Glinton suggested that the reference to non-citizens in the special provision qualified the whole of the paragraph. That plainly is not so," Lord Hope said. "The general provision applies to the appellants, just as it does to everyone else in The Bahamas."

The council said there was no doubt that the appellants’ detention was authorized by law within the meaning of the Constitution. Based on this and other points, Lord Hope said "the Constitutional objection must be rejected."

16 October 2007