Bahamians Rohn Knowles and Kelvin Leach have lost another legal battle, and this time it's not about money. The Supreme Court is ordering that the aborted extradition proceedings against them must resume, which could mean that their freedom may once again be restricted.
In September of 2014, the US Department of Justice unsealed an indictment accusing them and other defendants of committing a 1-billion dollar securities fraud. In the months that followed, Knowles and Leach were on a roll, winning the criminal and civil suits in the courts.
They successfully blocked the extradition proceedings, and then they beat the minor holding charges of failing to declare funds over $10,000 when leaving the Country. For good measure, they won an 8.8 million dollar award of damages for the excessive search and seizure, and they even forced the Central Bank to give them back their 1.4 million US dollars that the bank seized.
But, as we showed you 2 weeks ago, their fortunes started taking a downturn when the Court of Appeal dismissed that judgement debt. And, today, Justice Michelle Arana handed down her judgement ordering that their case must to be referred back to the Magistrate's Court so that the extradition proceedings run their course.
On September 15, 2014, Foreign Affairs Minister Wilfred Elrington issued an order to the Chief Magistrate for arrest warrants for both men, who were classified as fugitives of the United States. They applied to the Supreme Court and were released on bail of 100 thousand dollars. They then brought a constitutional challenge against the State asking the Supreme Court to stop the extradition on the grounds that their rights were violated.
Their attorneys, Eamon Courtenay and Godfrey Smith, argued that their right to privacy was violated when the undercover agent recorded video and phone calls which he and the US authorities intend to use to get a conviction.
Solicitor General Nigel Hawke fought against the lawsuit asking the court to rule against the claimants. He submitted that the constitutional relief sought is being prematurely asked for. As to the appropriateness of the recordings, he submitted that it is not for the extradition judge determine if they were improperly taken. Those matters, Hawke submitted, should be determined by the trial judge in the US or the jury listening to the case.
After considering all the arguments, Justice Arana agreed.
In her judgment from today, she wrote , "…I find very little merit in the submissions made on behalf of the applicants in this case stated, and I hereby refer the matter back to the Chief Magistrate for completion of the extradition proceedings. The relief sought is refused." End quote.
Email
Print