Samuel “Ninety” Knowles appeared in a Florida court on Thursday as expected, but the charges against him were not read.
One U.S. official told The Bahama Journal that that was because he had not had a chance to consult with his Bahamian attorney, Roger Minnis, who reportedly flew in to Florida, and Knowles also did not have an opportunity to consult with his family.
This means that Knowles will be back in court on Tuesday at which time the charges against him are expected to be read formally. A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney Generalﾒs office said the arraignment hearing is scheduled for 10am.
U.S. authorities made their first extradition request for Knowles on March 26, 2001, months after a federal grand jury in the United States indicted Knowles and others on counts of conspiracy to possess cocaine and marijuana with intent to distribute and conspiracy to import the same drugs in the United States between November 11, 1997 and December 8, 2000.
The second request was made on February 6, 2002 and was founded on an indictment preferred by a federal grand jury on May 25, 2000. It charged Knowles and others with counts of conspiracy to smuggle cocaine into the United States between June 1995 and 1997.
The extradition matter was a highly watched one. The U.S. Department of State noted in its annual drug report in March that the extradition of Samuel Knowles was still pending.
While he awaits his fate in the custody of Florida law enforcement officials, the debate over whether he should have been extradited continues.
The uproar over his extradition has to do with the fact that he still had a matter pending before the Supreme Court, as was pointed out by the Privy Council in its recent ruling when it rejected his appeal.
Knowlesﾒ attorneys have insisted all along that the drug kingpin label placed on him by U.S. President George W. Bush would mean that he could not get a fair trial in the United States.
Last December, the Privy Council ruled that it is up to the court in a country requesting extradition to decide whether a defendant could get a fair trial in the foreign state.
The Privy Council said in that particular ruling, which related to a case out of St. Kitts and Nevis, that the United States must be trusted to secure a fair trial in such matters.
Restating a determination made by the Supreme Court of Canada, the Privy Council said, “Our courts must assume that [the defendant] will be given a fair trial in the foreign country. Matters of due process generally are to be left for the courts to determine at the trial there as they would be if he were to be tried there.
“Attempts to pre-empt decisions on such matters, whether arising through delay or otherwise, would directly conflict with the principles of comity on which extradition is based.”
The court also borrowed language from another ruling saying that, “The proper forum for a complaint about publicity is the trial court.”
In the case of Knowles, his legal team wants the high court to determine that there are substantial grounds that indicate that he might not receive a fair trial in the United States.
Knowlesﾒ attorneys also insist that he was not granted due process under Bahamian law, and one of those attorneys, Mr. Minnis, has even said he was seeking permission from Knowles to sue Fred Mitchell in his official capacity as minister of foreign affairs.
As minister of foreign affairs, mr. Mitchell is charged with signing warrants of surrender on behalf of the bahamas government.
By: Candia Dames, The Bahama Journal
