Every Jamaican citizen expects the government to ensure that his/her constitutional rights are protected.  On this issue we have no disagreement with Prime Minister Bruce Golding and further, would insist that this solemn obligation applies in regard to the Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke extradition case, as with any other.

In our legal system, all citizens are entitled to a fair trial and to be treated as innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.  All past administrations have sworn to uphold this fundamental right in the Jamaican Constitution.

Where we part company with Mr. Golding, however, is what appears to be his position in the Coke case that the constitutional rights of a Tivoli Gardens resident carry greater weight with this political directorate than do the constitutional rights of the rest of us.  We say this because the essence of the dispute over this case is not that the administration is refusing to extradite Mr. Coke, but that it is blocking the carrying out of due process through the Jamaican courts to determine whether the American authorities have a prima facie case against him.

Put another way, the administration is determining the outcome of a matter that rightly belongs in the courts.  Contrary to what Mr. Golding has argued, compliance with the request of the Americans would not mean bypassing the Jamaican courts, but would require that the extradition process be initiated by putting their request before the local court for a determination.

In that process Mr. Coke would, as with any other citizen, be allowed a defence, as has happened in numerous other cases.  Only after that process is exhausted and a judgement handed down could extradition proceed.  To block this first step is essentially to frustrate the process and to renege on a treaty obligation entered into freely and under which the US authorities are, in turn, obliged to co-operate with Jamaica.

By allowing the request to be heard in the local courts, the concerns of the government would also be addressed.  Those concerns include that the American authorities supposedly secured evidence by illegal wiretapping, and the assertion that such evidence would not be admissible in Jamaican courts.  These are matters for a court to decide after hearing the arguments, and not for the Government’s lawyers to determine.

That American law requires telecommunications companies to undertake wiretapping only on the basis of court orders is strong reason for us to doubt Mr. Golding’s argument about the illegality of the evidence.  The US—Jamaica agreement for joint intelligence gathering is ongoing, and both sides have accepted wiretapping as an important element of the activity.  Moreover, there is no law in Jamaica, which says that evidence collected illegally is inadmissible.

It is for all of these reasons that we strongly advocate that the Coke case be allowed to proceed through the courts.  We are embarrassed that for more than six months the Government has dragged its feet, pulling Jamaica’s name into the mud, and unnecessarily putting the relationship with a major partner at risk.  We are not fooled by the smokescreen of sovereignty, and this posturing must stop now.

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