US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

**Dyoll_73** · 03-15-2010, 09:42 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: MGee</div><div class="ubbcode-body">sorry, my friend, i'd say the reduction to petty political point scoring started with your earlier comment, and in fact, continues in your response above. who cares if the opposition is grandstanding? that's what they do in parliamentary democracies, even here in canada. if the PM's position is firm, let it be firm in the national interest, and not in party interest.</div></div>

LOL! From your posts to others on this board, I get a sense of the little games you play on occasion. Here, you do something, then you accuse me of doing it. I said the PM should stand his ground and not be kicked around by the Opposition BECAUSE his position is legally sound. If his position wasn't, then you would have a point about "political point scoring."

BTW, defending the constitutional rights of a Jamaican is well within the national interest. Now if you say that not only Dudus or the powerful should enjoy those rights, then I'm solidly with you on that.

But what would have been more to your liking - that a Jamaican is extradited to a foreign country by a legally questionable process (evidence obtained illegally, and in violation of his constitutional rights), with no objections because of fear of upsetting the powerful neighbor? What do you think - and be honest now - Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) would have done if he had gotten this extradition request from Jamaica for an American citizen with this kind of 'evidence'? Or the Attorney General of Canada, for that matter?

**evanovitch** · 03-16-2010, 12:45 AM

Dudus" impasse stalling appointment of new Ambassador to Was

Dudus" impasse stalling appointment of new Ambassador to Washington
Monday, 15 March 2010

Christopher "Dudus" Coke.Prime Minister Bruce Golding is denying claims that the US State Department has put a freeze on Jamaica's effort to appoint a new ambassador to the United States.

The government wants to change the Ambassador to the United States, but a source has told RJR News the impasse between the two countries over the extradition of Christopher "Dudus" Coke has stalled the exercise.

Audrey Marks, Chief Executive Officer of Paymaster is being tapped as Jamaica's new Ambassador to the US to replace Anthony Johnson.

But it is understood that the US is stalling on accepting the new nominee because of the strained relations between the two countries over the delay in the extradition of Christopher Coke.

However, the Prime Minister has dismissed those claims.

"I don't think the "Dudus" affair will affect Ms. Marks' appointment to Washington," said Mr. Golding.

He also rubbished claims that he is afraid to take out Mr. Johnson and replace him with Ms. Marks.

"That's absolutely not true," he said.

Audrey Marks.RJR News's source has however cast the Prime Minister's assertions aside.

The source claims that there are worries that if Mr. Johnson is moved before Ms. Marks is accepted as Jamaica's top diplomat in Washington the US government could apply diplomatic pressure by delaying or rejecting a new ambassador from Jamaica as part of efforts to get the government to accede to its request for the extradition of Mr. Coke.

Ms. Marks was asked about being tapped as the new ambassador to Washington and whether or not the extradition involving Christopher Coke will affect her chances.

"For me to comment on that would be pure speculation ... it two speculation in one," was her response.

**evanovitch** · 03-16-2010, 07:07 PM

Siding with the USA

Siding with the USA

Jackass sey de worl' no level. Jackass sey him fin imself affi a tek side wid de US an is a funny position fe inna.

So the business with the man from west Kingston has reached the stage where it might just be affecting the visa status of Jamaicans who have absolutely no connection with the situation at hand. The speculation is flying hither and yon about just how many people are being refused visas outright, not to mention those whose precious permits of entry into the US are being cancelled.

And while Jackass has no love lost for the USA - and no visa for them to cancel, either - in this case, he has to acknowledge that they have actually prompted some Jamaican organisations which can make a difference to actually speak up.

Imagine, the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ) actually came out with a statement! Plus the Jamaica Council of Churches (JCC). Wow! This is great! Jackass has to ask, if this was not the US making requests and insisting on them being honoured, would these bodies actually be coming out with statements on this critical issue? Somehow, Jackass believes not, as the US has clout that really spurs people to action.

And we do need action, because how Jackass sees it is that this is a matter which goes way beyond what is being tussled over in the here and now. It may or may not come to a head in the next few weeks and months, but the issue goes back far further than when the US made this particular extradition request. And the issues go far further into the future than whatever terminal point will unravel from this impasse.

garrison politics

The issue is Jamaica's political, and by extension, economic and social development since Independence, and even before, and how the country will develop into the future. The real issue is garrison politics and all its spin-offs - crime, corruption, states within the state and extradition requests.

As clear as it seems to Jackass that this is a matter that Jamaica has to resolve if it is to survive, much less prosperity, it is one that as a nation we have not addressed. Now, even though the debate has not widened beyond the legality and verifiability of information about the immediate case in question, at least we are close to the edge of the subject.

And, as sad as Jackass is to say it, it is the US which has brought us here.

You have to understand Jackass' position on the US, especially the war on Iraq and Afghanistan, to comprehend the sadness. Jackass burnt serious fire, publicly, on the George Bush administration for its post 9/11 invasions and, along with many persons, pointed to the sheer arrogance involved.

Now, he finds himself having to agree with that same accursed arrogance. For if this is the only way in which those who actually can make a difference can be made to speak, then so be it.

We like to flay dancehall and powerless persons in socially precarious positions for the existence and continuation of informer culture, but the code of silence exists in places far removed from sound systems and gully banks.

It seems that it may take the determined interest of the US in a matter to loosen the lips of those whose voices need to be heard on this matter that has confronted our nation for a long time, but which we have steadfastly ignored.

So Jackass will not be joining any anti-US, 'we are our own nation' rhetoric on this one. Nope. Cause that is just a smokescreen.

Jackass sey de worl' no level. Jackass sey 'im fin' imself pon de same side as de US, an dat strange!

**jojiobi** · 03-16-2010, 11:56 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

One need not look far to find that the politicians in power have a personal stake in this matter. They were the ones turning a blind eye and sometimes outright facilitating dudus' rise to 'the presidency'. They unleashed a monster and now it's bigger than they are. I would personally love to have him extradited. Rights or no rights the man is a criminal and him have too much power for my comfort. That said, the man is maintaining a delicate order in the nation. If he is extradited there WILL be riots by the people he took care of... and there are many. People respect and love him and he has done some collaboration with legal agencies which only serves to legitimize his criminal empire. It's too late. With all the passa passa the government and JCF dealing with out there already they can't afford to incite further public unrest. especially not with the gunmen who just done buy out the JCF gun and ammo supply from crooked police officers. Sadly, the nation can't handle it and far more innocent Jamaicans would suffer if he were extradited.

**evanovitch** · 03-17-2010, 11:54 AM

Gov’t denies US law firm hired to fight extradition

Gov’t denies US law firm hired to fight extradition

BY LYNFORD SIMPSON Observer writer [email protected]

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

THE Opposition walked out of yesterday's sitting of the House of Representatives after the Government dismissed claims that it had engaged the services of a United States-based law firm to, among other things, advise the administration on pending extradition requests.

The Opposition was also upset over the alleged "partisan behaviour" of House Speaker Delroy Chuck and also what it claimed was the "arrogance" of Prime Minister Bruce Golding.

The relationship between Washington and Kingston has been deteriorating rapidly since the Government's refusal to extradite Tivoli Gardens strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke to face trial on alleged gun and drug charges in the US.

The issue about Government's engagement of a United States law firm arose during a routine debate on regulations for the sharing of forfeited property between Jamaica and the United Kingdom.

However, Dr Peter Phillips, a former national security minister, steered the debate in the direction of the Coke extradition issue after pointing to information on a US Government website regarding a contract between the US and Jamaica, which he said named noted attorney-at-law Harold Brady as acting on behalf of the Jamaican Government.

Phillips said the US-based law firm -- Manatt, Phelps and Phillips -- was engaged for US$100,000 per quarter to provide services that would include "contacts and meetings with the executive branch regarding existing political and economic matters, including existing treaty agreements between Jamaica and the US".

Dr Phillips wanted to know if arrangements with the US firm included current extradition matters. However, House Speaker Delroy Chuck intervened, insisting that the question had no bearing on the debate about forfeited property. "I understand that the Government of Jamaica in November 2009 entered into agreement with a firm named Manatt, Phelps and Phillips who claim, in their foreign agents registration, that they represent the Government of Jamaica through Harold Brady and Company. And that their advice, among other things, is sought in relation to treaties, agreements, political and economic matters ...at a cost of US$100,000 per quarter," Phillips told the House. "Given the timing, my question is, does this represent a contractual obligation as reported by the Government of Jamaica, does it relate to extradition matters and is it properly entered into by the particular individual on behalf of the Government of Jamaica?" Phillips questioned.

It was at this point that Chuck intervened, even before the prime minister could respond. In his response, Golding said: "The diversion of the member is rather not surprising. I think the House will have to prepare itself that it is not the last time that you will have heard from that member with a similar diversion.

"Let me make it quite clear. The Government of Jamaica has not engaged any legal firm, any consultant, any entity whatsoever, in relation to any extradition matter other than to deploy the resources that are available within the Attorney General's Department who has a duty and responsibility to guide the Government on these matters," Golding said. Efforts to reach Brady for comment last night were unsuccessful.

**evanovitch** · 03-17-2010, 11:56 AM

Hylton warns against taking 'Dudus' matter to UN

Hylton warns against taking 'Dudus' matter to UN

Wednesday, March 17, 2010

OPPOSITION spokesman on foreign affairs and foreign trade, Anthony Hylton, yesterday warned the Bruce Golding-led Government not to take the contentious US extradition request for Tivoli Gardens strongman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke to the United Nations (UN).

Responding to this week's Sunday Observer lead story, Hylton, in a release to the media, said involving the UN in the matter would only serve to further sour relations between Jamaica and its powerful neighbour to the north.

"Jamaica has been viewed as a law-abiding member in the international community. To take this bilateral imbroglio to the United Nations would only further jeopardise Jamaica's standing and reputation within the international family of nations," the release stated.

Coke has been accused of drug trafficking and gun running by the US Attorney's Office which last August asked the Jamaican Government to extradite him to answer to the charges in a New York court.

But eight months after an indictment was handed over to the Jamaican Government outlining the allegations against Coke the order to proceed has not yet been signed by Attorney General and Minister of Justice Dorothy Lightbourne.

Two weeks ago, Golding announced in Parliament that the evidence provided by US against Coke breached the Interception of Communications Act, and said he was prepared to pay a political price for refusing to have the extradition proceed.

This week, the Sunday Observer reported that the administration was mulling over taking the matter before a UN tribunal for mediation.

But Hylton was adamant that such a move could backfire.

"To go to the United Nations with this matter would also only highlight, on an international stage, the contradiction of our own Government bypassing our local judiciary to consult with an international arbitrator," the release stated.

"If there is need for any third party involvement in this matter it should come from our local courts. It is a long-standing principle of international law and relations that local remedies must first be exhausted before approaching the United Nations," the release said.

The US Government is presently preparing a second indictment against Coke which, they believe, will satisfy Golding's concerns.

The US authorities say they have information from nine co-conspirators against Coke, whose stronghold is Tivoli Gardens, the seat of power in Goldng's West Kingston constituency.

Earlier this month, the US State Department in its annual Narcotics Report accused Jamaica of employing delay tactics in the extradition matter and questioned the country's commitment to law enforcement co-operation.

**evanovitch** · 03-17-2010, 06:54 PM

G2K says US based attorney spouting lies

G2K says US based attorney spouting lies
Wednesday, 17 March 2010

The young professional affiliate of the ruling Jamaica Labour Party, Generation 2000 (G2K) has castigated a Jamaican born United States attorney for inciting rumours surrounding the extradition request for Christopher "Dudus" Coke, West Kingston strongman.

<span style="font-weight: bold">The group stopped short of naming the attorney.</span>

According to Delano Seivwright, G2K President, the organization is deeply troubled by the continued unverified statements being made by the Miami-based lawyer whose utterances it feels, have served to create panic.

"He continues to issue reams of unsubstantiated talks related to the extradition matter and this includes talk about plans to target tourists, kidnappings, imminent travel advisories, widespread visa cancellations, and a whole host of things.

He continues to talk about having connections with White House and State Department insiders but frankly, in our minds, it's mass propaganda and on a gargantuan scale and quite possibly lies.

"We think this does more harm than good to Jamaica and is starting to incite panic," Mr. Seivwright said.

**mountaingal** · 03-17-2010, 08:07 PM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Humano</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
LOL! From your posts to others on this board, I get a sense of the little games you play on occasion. Here, you do something, then you accuse me of doing it. I said the PM should stand his ground and not be kicked around by the Opposition BECAUSE his position is legally sound. If his position wasn't, then you would have a point about "political point scoring." </div></div>

first thing i'd say, humano, is to judge me by my interactions with you, and not by my interactions with others. game playing is a trait i despise. if u read something that leads u to think i accuse people of something that i did first, then i'd encourage you to read again.

here is your original quote to which i responded:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While it's not only the PNP that is calling for the court to decide, <span style="font-weight: bold">if the PM should go that route, it would be the equivalent of being kicked around by the Opposition, especially by big mouths such as Peter Phillips and Portia Simpson, and it will further weaken him.</span> He should stand his ground, <span style="font-weight: bold">especially </span>since he is right.</div></div>

i don't know if you like parsing but i suggest that there's a difference between "because" and "especially", the latter term not as absolute as the first. based on that, i still interpret your choice of wording above as encouraging partisan politicking in the PM. Now you may disagree with me in that interpretation, that is your prerogative. what i don't understand is how by simply pointing that out to you it became a case of <span style="font-weight: bold">me</span> suggesting petty politics for the PM. i thought i was pretty clear in saying i thought the PM should do things in the national interest and not the party interest, how do you interpret that as me promoting "petty politicking" ?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">BTW, defending the constitutional rights of a Jamaican is well within the national interest. Now if you say that not only Dudus or the powerful should enjoy those rights, then I'm solidly with you on that. </div></div>

did u read all my posts? i suggested that a couple pages back when i wondered why the state was standing on the principle of defending jamaicans' rights in this case when the state itself was complicit in mashing up the rights of jamaicans on a day to day basis. i was told i was confusing the police with the attorney general.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But what would have been more to your <span style="font-weight: bold">liking</span> - that a Jamaican is extradited to a foreign country by a legally questionable process (evidence obtained illegally, and in violation of his constitutional rights), with no objections because of fear of upsetting the powerful neighbor? What do you think - and be honest now - Eric Holder (the US Attorney General) would have done if he had gotten this extradition request from Jamaica for an American citizen with this kind of 'evidence'? Or the Attorney General of Canada, for that matter? </div></div>

my "liking"? asking me that question shows to me that you have not understood my posts on this matter.

i've been around long enough and analyzed enough systems to know that "letter of the law" is a starting point and not a destination in the vast majority of cases. generally speaking, i think "doing the right thing" is crystal clear in very few instances, and that, especially for people in a governing position, "doing the right thing" involves way more considerations than for regular individuals.

what i want is for Bruce Golding to have thought this through, assessed all the impacts of his position, especially on the country's larger population and longer term interests (and yes, that may include facing the reality check of being on the subordinate end of a power relationship). if he truly believes that his current position is the right one - based on what the returns are for <span style="font-weight: bold">jamaica</span> and not his party - then that's fine.

**evanovitch** · 03-21-2010, 02:51 PM

‘I didn’t know it was Dudus’ phone'

‘I didn’t know it was Dudus’ phone'

BY DESMOND ALLEN Executive Editor - Operations [email protected]

Sunday, March 21, 2010

A J Nicholson, the former attorney general, did not know it was Christopher 'Dudus' Coke's phone he was asking the court to tap, when he sought the relevant warrant to do so, on February 2, 2007.

In fact, if the rules are followed, no attorney general knows whose telephone conversation they are seeking a warrant to tap, according to the then governing People's National Party attorney general and minister of justice.

The wire-tapping of Coke's phone is now the centre of an escalating dispute between the Bruce Golding administration and the United States which is demanding Coke's extradition for alleged trafficking in guns and drugs, based on evidence from those intercepted conversations.

"Requests of this nature made by the requesting and applying agencies, the security forces, never bear the name of the person whose telephone communication is sought to be intercepted. For common-sense reasons, the name is known only to the security forces when the document is placed before the attorney general," said Nicholson.

"As I recall, the practice was, and I expect remains, for an 'X' to be placed where the name is to be affixed, so that, for example, the attorney general would not know whether the subject was his relative or his next-door neighbour. So, the rationale is for the security forces to ensure the highest level of secrecy. I had no problem with this," he said.

The Supreme Court granted Nicholson's request for the interception of Coke's telephone communications on that occasion, and later on March 27, 2007, July 13, 2007 and September 18, 2007.

But Jamaica has stubbornly refused to extradite Coke as requested by the US last August under the two country's 1993 Extradition Treaty and subsequent memoranda of understanding.

Critics of the administration suggest the refusal is because the Tivoli Gardens strongman is aligned to the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and resides in Golding's West Kingston constituency.

Nicholson sought to have clarification on his role in the Coke extradition affair, in a letter to the Sunday Observer, commenting on the newspaper's report on March 15, 2010, titled "Golding's sternest political test -- how the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke extradition story unfolded".

"I draw this to your attention lest there is the impression that an attorney general, past or present, in signing such a request, may be influenced by any oblique consideration, including the name that may appear on the document," the former attorney general insisted.

"Finally, your 'source' might have made it explicit that the requests come from the security forces lest the further regrettable view be left that they may come from any other quarter," he noted.

According to law, a warrant to intercept anyone's telephone has to be issued by the Supreme Court ex parte and must be disclosed only to the commissioner of police, a superintendent of police and the head of the Military Intelligence Unit of the Jamaica Defence Force.

The transcribed information is also to be disseminated only to those individuals whose involvement in the investigation necessitates the receipt of this information.

In the dispute, Jamaica accuses the US of breaching the Interception of Communications Act 2002 (ICA) which governs wire-tapping in Jamaica.

Jamaica insists that there is a general Constitutional right of freedom of expression in Jamaica, including the right of freedom from interference to receive and impart ideas, as well as freedom from interference with one's correspondence and other means of communication.

Moreover, Jamaica argues, because the ICA is an intrusion on a citizen's Constitutional right to freedom of expression, its provisions have to be scrupulously observed and followed.

No order was ever made authorising the disclosure of information to a foreign government, agents of a foreign government or an agency of a foreign government, says Jamaica.

The Act provides that any person who intercepts communication in unauthorised circumstances commits a criminal offence and is liable to imprisonment for a period of three years or a fine not exceeding $3 million or both; and that any person who knowingly discloses the contents of any communication commits a criminal offence and is liable to imprisonment for a period of five years or a fine of $5 million or both.

**evanovitch** · 03-21-2010, 02:55 PM

Re: ‘I didn’t know it was Dudus’ phone'

<span style="font-weight: bold">On the matter of extradition</span>
DIANE ABBOTT

Sunday, March 21, 2010

A political storm has brewed over the proposed extradition of Christopher "Dudus" Coke, and with this in mind it is worth considering similar rows in other countries. Jamaica is not the only country which has signed an extradition treaty with the United States.

A famous British case was the NatWest Three. Also known as the Enron 3, Giles Darby, David Bermingham and Gary Mulgrew were three British bankers who got involved in the Enron scandal while working for financial services company National Westminster Bank. They were accused of conspiring with executives of the collapsed energy company Enron to defraud their employers to the tune of $7.3 million.

In 2002 they were indicted in the US courts. They then led a high-profile public campaign here in the United Kingdom to avoid being extradited to the United States. They were successful in drawing attention away from the nature of their crimes (fraud and embezzlement) and focusing public attention on the fact of extradition. They and their advisors rode on the latent anti-Americanism which exists in all smaller countries. Serious newspapers campaigned on their behalf. Much was made of the unequal nature of the treaty and other technical legal matters.

In fact, they had everything to fear from being extradited to the United States. England is notoriously a "soft touch" for banking fraud. But America prides itself on being prepared to imprison delinquent bankers. The leading Republican politician and one-time Mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani first gained fame as the New York District Attorney. He was notorious for marching bankers and financiers suspected of fraud out of their offices with handcuffs on. Such a thing would be unthinkable in Britain.

The NatWest 3 fought extradition in the courts for years with the help of expensive lawyers and lobbyists. But in the end they could delay the process no longer. In 2006, four years after they were first indicted, they were extradited from the United Kingdom to the United States. Despite their protestation of innocence, when the case reached the courts in 2007, they each pleaded guilty and were sentenced to 37 months in prison. In 2008 the American authorities announced that they would spend the rest of their sentences in the UK and would be released at the end of 2009.

Another extradition case in the UK relates to the Gary McKinnon campaign. McKinnon is a 44-year-old computer hacker who is facing extradition to the US for hacking into US military computer systems. The US prosecutors describe it as "the biggest computer hack of all time". McKinnon has fought extradition for over five years in the British courts. He also has a high-profile public campaign supported by a number of newspapers and fronted by his mother. Her argument is that because her son has a learning difficulty (Asperger Syndrome) it is not fair to send him to trial in the United States.

It has been proven, time and again, that it is possible to whip up nationalistic feelings against extradition here in the United Kingdom. But the first step in fighting an extradition request is to take the matter before the courts. Hopefully, before too long, this will happen in the Dudus case. But if the British examples are anything to go by, it will be some time before we see a resolution of this matter.

**andronian2** · 03-22-2010, 04:59 AM

Re: US issues stinging report on "Dudus" extradition

Tori a come to bump fi mi and all mi a smell is rotten stink corruption.

Page not found | Jamaica Gleaner

http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20100321/lead/lead1.html

**evanovitch** · 03-30-2010, 12:45 PM

Minister has final say in extradition issue — Phipps

Minister has final say in extradition issue — Phipps

BY HG HELPS Editor-at-Large [email protected]

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

'LET the courts decide', is the cry from numerous individuals and organisations responding to the extradition request for West Kingston businessman Christopher 'Dudus' Coke, who is wanted by United States (US) authorities to answer drug- and arms-trafficking allegations.

US officials are awaiting a request made last August for Coke to be sent to that country to face the courts, but Jamaican authorities have been putting up resistance, citing breaches in procedure on the part of the Americans.

However, while there is a role for the courts in the matter, the final decision -- a political one -- rests with the attorney general, the minister responsible for extradition matters, veteran attorney Frank Phipps, QC has said.

Addressing editors and reporters at the Observer's weekly Monday Exchange at the newspaper's Beechwood Avenue offices yesterday, Phipps said that while the courts had a role to play, the attorney general had the final say.

"Those who are saying send the matter to the courts for a decision, are wrong," Phipps said.

"It is a political decision. The minister sends the extradition request to the courts, which goes through the evidence to see if the evidence supports the charges, or there are breaches of any of the conditions in the treaty and sends it back to the minister," he explained. "If the minister certifies that there is nothing, then the minister decides whether or not to end the matter. I don't know of any case where after that process has been completed that the minister has refused to grant it. If the minister refuses, then reason has to be given. The court does not decide, the court is just a particular process."

Phipps said that the minister, however, did not have the authority to overrule the court if it decided that an individual was not eligible for extradition, as that person would be released by the court on the spot.

"The court can only operate if and when the minister signs the authority to proceed. The authority to proceed is now the bone of contention...," he said. "If it is a matter for the minister, the minister is not like a post office where the moment a request comes from a foreign state, it automatically must be passed on to the courts.

"The minister has a function to perform, which must be based on something that is factual and can be reasoned. My understanding of this case is that the evidence that was obtained was in breach of the Interception of Communications Act -- in that wiretapping the conversation between Coke and somebody else is listened to by the police... but I gather that the information that was gathered was passed on to some unauthorised person. We have more questions than answers," Phipps said.

<span style="font-weight: bold">
POST A COMMENT</span>

You must first register and then login to be able to post a comment.

HOUSE RULES

1. We welcome reader comments on the top stories of the day. Some comments may be republished on the website or in the newspaper – email addresses will not be published.

2. Please understand that comments are moderated and it is not always possible to publish all that have been submitted. We will, however, try to publish comments that are representative of all received.

3. We ask that comments are civil and free of libellous or hateful material. Also please stick to the topic under discussion.

4. Please don't use the comments to advertise. However, our advertising department can be more than accommodating if emailed: [email protected].

5. If readers wish to report offensive comments, suggest a correction or share a story then please email: [email protected].

6. Lastly, read our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, and before commenting you need to register, conveniently, by clicking the link above.

(Log out)

Comment (required):

For information about privacy please read our Privacy Policy.

I have read and accepted the Terms and Conditions

COMMENTS (6)

User Login
e-mail

Password

Remember login?
Create a new account
Retrieve forgotten password

Paul Lewis
3/30/2010
The P.M. has already spoken / threatened, so there can no dissent. The Justice Minister / A.G., cannot make an independent decision about anything, which may have political consequences.

Rudy Reds
3/30/2010
So, if the Attorney General has the final say...why is she the only one not saying anything??????????
The Attorney General has no say...she is just a pawn for Bruce.

Hope Alive
3/30/2010
@TG/Tuff Gong: No one is disputing that but from all appearances, this decision is being taken on political grounds on the sychophants can't see that. The truth will soon come to light ... illegal wire tapping my foot!

Raul Grant
3/30/2010
Interesting that Phipps is saying that those who say that the matter must be sent to the courts for a decision are wrong. As then he goes on to say that the court can be a part of the process and that they make judgments on the evidence.
Phipps, many people want to see this particular matter before the courts for precisely that purpose, so that the court can determine if the evidence support the charges (without any obvious fear or favor). This why people are saying 'send' it to the courts.
Many people already know ( having heard robustly from the "PM&quot

that the attorney general has the right of decision.

JA Cynic
3/30/2010
We must be careful not to bee seen as fighting self- erected straw men.Nobody has ever contended that the Minister does not have the final say.
What is at issue is that the process must be allowed to operate and the court should have its say on legal matters.
A political appointee cannot be called upon to exercise a judicial function even under the Westminster system--a limited separation of powers.
Phipps is right ,if only in one respect: the number of question exceeding the number ( and adequacy) of the answers provided.
Perhaps the best available forum to deal with such a situation is the court--not Parliament or Jamaica House.
JA Cynic

T G
3/30/2010
I thought Mr. Golding made it clear and Mr. Phipps already said it on at least one other occasion.
Now unno hear it again!
....TG....

**Leddih** · 04-01-2010, 03:30 PM

Matter for Court - Golding

Dudus Matter for Court - Golding

Damion Mitchell, Assistant News Editor - Radio

Prime Minister Bruce Golding has bowed to public pressure for the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke extradition issue to go to court.

Golding has instructed Attorney General Dorothy Lightbourne to seek a declaration from the court as to whether she was right to deny the extradition request.

The United States wants Coke to answer to drug and firearm charges.

The Government had denied the extradition request claiming the US had illegally obtained wiretap evidence that was being used to prosecute Coke.

interest of the public

Speaking on his monthly radio call-in programme Jamaica House Live, Golding said he decided to send the matter to court in the interest of the public.

He said he has ordered Dorothy Lightbourne to have the court rule on two issues concerning her decision.

This is an about turn from the position Golding had advanced 29 days ago in Parliament.

At that time, he was insistent that the attorney general was right in denying the request by the United States for Coke to be extradited.

**barosa** · 04-01-2010, 04:09 PM

Re: Matter for Court - Golding

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Speaking on his monthly radio call-in programme Jamaica House Live, Golding said he decided to send the matter to court in the interest of the public.

He said he has ordered Dorothy Lightbourne to have the court rule on two issues concerning her decision.

<span style="font-weight: bold">This is an about turn from the position Golding had advanced 29 days ago in Parliament.</span>

At that time, he was insistent that the attorney general was right in denying the request by the United States for Coke to be extradited. </div></div>
It appears that Bruce is softening his stance somewhat. Let's face it, he's up against the most formidable institutions in the US. the W/House and the State Dept.. - It's not likely that the "tag team" of Bruce & Dorothy will prevail over the team of "B & H"... There is a lot at stakes, depending on the outcome, but for now, I'm not a betting man...
________________________

At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth ia a revolutionary act : George Orwell

**Leddih** · 04-01-2010, 05:15 PM

Re: Matter for Court - Golding

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Golding said he decided to send the matter to court in the interest of the public.</div></div>

It is an interesting admission that in his opinion protecting Mr. Coke is different from protecting the interest of the public.