Former FIFA Vice President, Austin Jack Warner, Continues His Fight Against Extradition to US

PORT OF SPAIN, Trinidad – Chief Magistrate Maria Busby Earle-Caddle says seven questions raised by former FIFA vice president, Austin Jack Warner regarding his extradition to the United States to face a multiplicity of corruption-related charges, were legally grounded and had merit.

Austin Jack Warner (File Photo)In her ruling on Monday, the chief magistrate was also critical of the actions of the State and the United States.

Attorney General Reginald Armour, SC, said he is “disturbed” by the ruling even as he acknowledged that he was not fully briefed on the ruling but took specific issue with the Chief Magistrate’s findings of fact. He did not identify what he took issue with.

Invoking the sub-judice rule, which prevents parties from speaking about cases before the court, Armour said all the Chief Magistrate had was Warner’s affidavit in support of his application for her to refer his questions to the High Court.

Armour said he intends to meet with the State’s legal team to review the chief magistrate’s decision.

Warner, who served as vice president of the global football organization from 1990-2011,  has challenged the constitutionality of an alleged agreement  that former attorney general Faris Al-Rawi signed with the US in 2015 before he signed off on the authority for the chief magistrate to go ahead with the extradition proceedings for Warner.

His lawyers argument relates to the arrangement between the US and Trinidad and Tobago for extradition and the specialty principle which, by law, provides that a person who is extradited can be prosecuted or sentenced in the requesting state only in relation to the offences for which extradition was granted, and not for any other crime allegedly committed before the extradition took place.

Magistrate Earle-Caddle said the actions of Al–Rawi lacked consistency and that the agreement should be in writing to ensure the requirements of the Extradition Act were adhered to, and only then can the attorney general sign the certificate to move forward with the extradition.

Al-Rawi, in his authority to proceed, certified there was an arrangement with the US, but the court ruled that “there appears to be colossal misrepresentation on behalf of the team by attorney general and the requesting state (the US).”

Warner’s latest legal challenge was prompted by a freedom of information request for the alleged special arrangement. He received a response from the Office of the Attorney General saying a search of its Central Authority’s records had not uncovered a written version of the arrangements.

The Chief Magistrate said Warner’s application was not frivolous or vexatious, and referred Warner’s questions to the High Court for its immediate attention.

“How does one certify something that is possibly nonexistent? Is this the new norm where this is a flagrant disregard for what is right? Is this the presumption of regularity that ordinary citizens must now accept? A regularity of whatever is expedient? Surely not a rubber-stamping inimical to the protections guaranteed by our legislation and Constitution,” the Chief Magistrate said, emphasizing that the law was clear, as the extradition process involved the liberty of citizens.

“The end result of extradition is the deprivation of a person’s liberty and subjection to a foreign jurisdiction. It is of paramount importance that any process which supports taking away that freedom must adhere strictly to the legal requirements,” she said, adding that entering into an agreement was intended to protect those rights.

The Chief Magistrate said the burden was on the US to ensure that the specialty agreement was in place, and its absence may result in a breach of a citizen’s rights.

Warner’s lawyers had argued that in his case there was none, and the Chief Magistrate said she was inclined to agree. She said there appeared to be uncertainty that the arrangement existed.

The Chief Magistrate maintained it was the statutory duty of the Attorney General to ensure the protection of citizens’ rights.

“There must be a written copy of the arrangement in existence,” Earle-Caddle said, noting that a diplomatic note was “surreptitiously” included by the State in its response to Warner’s application to give an ex-post-facto (after the fact) assurance that the specialty requirement will be observed if Warner is sent to the US to face the charges there.

She said this February 28, 2023, note did not negate the absence of an arrangement that should have been prepared in 2015, but lent credence to the apparent non-existence of the arrangement.

“A written arrangement is required along with the authority to proceed,” she said, noting also that Warner’s latest challenge bore no similarity to his previous one, nor was it an abuse of the court’s process.

She also said the written agreement was a pre-condition to the authority to proceed, and in the absence of one, there appeared to be a “colossal misrepresentation” by the team representing the State. This, she said, must be examined and, if true, condemned.

The Chief Magistrate said the adducing of false representations by an executive arm of the State that had “the proclivity to breach the fundamental rights of our citizens can be likened to abuse and needs to be interrogated by the High Court not only for the benefit of the octogenarian or politically-sensitive person but the benefit of all citizens regardless of economic and social status, color, creed, race or sporting interest.

“An attorney general was expected to come to the court with clean hands to ensure that the legal process was not compromised and to maintain the public trust and confidence in the legal system.

“The questions raised will be referred to the High Court forthwith,” she ruled as she adjourned the extradition proceedings before her to January 22, 2024, pending the decision of the High Court.

Warner’s application to have the chief magistrate refer his questions to the High Court was made in February, which was the first after extradition proceedings resumed after the Privy Council’s ruling on his challenge in November last year.

On November 17, 2022, the Privy Council, Trinidad and Tobago’s highest court, paved the way for the continuation of the proceedings to extradite Warner to the US to face fraud-related charges.

The Privy Council had dismissed Warner’s lawyers’ contention that the extradition request was unlawful.

US prosecutors allege that from as far back as 1990, Warner leveraged his influence and exploited his official positions for personal gain.

Among other things, the 80-year-old former football administrator is accused of receiving five million US dollars in bribes – sent via more than two dozen separate wire transfers, from 10 different shell companies, to a Caribbean Football Union account he controlled at Republic Bank in Trinidad and Tobago – to vote for Russia to host the 2018 World Cup.

Warner was one of 14 defendants charged in connection with the 24-year scheme that prosecutors alleged was designed to “enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer”.

In 2015, FIFA banned him from all soccer-related activities for life.  Warner is on TT$2.5 million (One TT dollar=US$0.16 cents) bail.