More voices including some from among Jamaica’s ruling class are beseeching the Government to allow the Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke extradition request to be adjudicated by the Jamaican courts, in keeping with our Constitution and our Treaty obligations.  We are encouraged by this positive sign, but must warn of what we fear is the stubborn resistance of Prime Minister Bruce Golding and his administration to hand over the fate of the ranking JLP don to the country’s judicial process.

Proof of their intransigence was made unmistakably clear not only in the fact that the matter was brought before both the Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament, but also in the belligerence of the justification put forward for rejecting the US’s request.

Even as we urge every responsible Jamaican to make their voice be heard on a matter that is crucial to our country’s reputation and to good relations with partners without whose cooperation the fight against crime will be stalled, we need to understand the specific nature of the alleged criminal activity in which Mr. Coke is accused of being engaged.  We believe that the Jamaican citizenry are entitled to answers to a number of pertinent questions that would allow them to more fully understand the gravity of this case.

To begin, what exactly are the contents of the wiretap on which the American authorities have based the charges against Mr. Coke?  And who were the other people in the conversations?  We are told that those charges include drug trafficking and gunrunning, but only a few specifics have so far been mentioned publicly, and only vaguely.  Since one individual on his own could not have conducted these alleged activities, who other than Mr. Coke would the contents of the wiretap have an impact on?

Jamaica has been engulfed in the guns-for-drugs trade that has propelled us to the top spot among crime-infested countries.  Until recently our politicians have bemoaned how for too long our governments have been unable to get the US authorities to clamp down on gun-running from that country.  How, therefore, could any Jamaican government stand in the way of allegations about gun-running to the country being heard in our courts?  Shouldn’t we demand to know on whose behalf the alleged gunrunning was perpetrated?  Because, were the allegations to be true, anyone involved would be a public enemy.

We note that the Prime Minister spoke authoritatively in Parliament about the wire-tapping and appeared to judge the legality of the evidence gathering, as more important than the nature of the evidence that has been put forward.  Nonetheless, we reiterate our view that judgement on this issue properly resides within the judiciary and not with the Executive.  If the Prime Minister is privy to such evidence, as it appears he is, then he ought to be able to answer the questions we have raised.  He also has the responsibility to assure us that the evidence does not portend a threat to public safety.

Except for the views appearing above, articles in this newspaper do not necessarily represent the opinion of the newspaper.