The legal saga of the celebrated so called ‘Ninety’ Knowles case is finally, thank God, completed. Bahamians have been subjected to a form of carnival and soap opera for the past six years, almost as a national pastime or societal diversion.
There were some who thought that ‘Ninety’ would never be extradited to the USA because of his perceived political connections and support in his local community. The rest of us, inclusive of myself, always felt that, at the end of the charade and bogus legal ‘arguments,’ that he would be sent to face the federal charges which were laid against him and which formed the basis for the extradition request from the USA.
Personally and as a trained attorney with extensive knowledge of and practice in the criminal law arena, I have never believed that a Bahamian, charged with committing an ‘offence’ against another country (but not in The Bahamas), should not be subject to extradition and the criminal justice system of that other nation.
We did, however, enter into an extradition treaty with the USA and other countries, voluntarily and with both of our eyes wide open. Having done this, we cannot now be seen to be hollering and demonstrating all over the place just because Ninety has been extradited.
The law is the law and must be applied, across the board, in all cases. If the indictments are ‘weak’ and not supported by credible evidence, I am convinced that Mr Knowles would be acquitted and discharged. Alternatively, if they are well founded and grounded on incontrovertible evidence, he would be adjudged guilty.
Having avidly followed this legal saga from day one, I am more than persuaded that Mr Knowles was ill-served and/ or represented by his array of lawyers. Never before have I witnessed the abject level of legal incompetence and lack of preparation as was displayed in this case. You mean to tell me that Mr Knowles could not have gotten bail in all of six years? If our Court of Appeal had rejected an application for bail, pending the long drawn out extradition process, could Ninety’s lawyers not have approached The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, years ago, for relief? Not a single such application, to my knowledge, was ever filed.
Now, it seems that at least one of those ‘legal eagles’ has determined in his mind that Ninety may be able to mount a civil case against the Minister of Foreign Affairs for contempt of court! Well blow me down! Is this lawyer serious? On what basis would a legitimate court declare Mitchell in contempt? I have little doubt that the lawyer in question was merely posturing for the media and may have been seeking to ‘milk’ the last drop of free publicity that he will get out of this long drawn out legal fiasco. Ninety, perhaps, needs to put an immediate ‘gag’ on this legal eagle and get on with the serious preparation of his defence, such as it might be.
The applicable law and procedure herein are so simple that even a first year law student would have been capable of advising Mr Knowles of his status and/or options. There were two major cases presented against Mr Knowles. One case was appealed to the Privy Council level. That case, an appeal against a prior extradition order, was just dismissed by the council a month or so ago.
He had no other appeals opened to him. He had run the gauntlet of available options and there were none remaining. It was on this basis that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was obliged and, indeed, mandated by law, to sign the order for the extradition of Knowles to the USA. Had Mitchell failed or refused to do his constitutional duty, I have no doubt that the Rt. Hon. Prime Minister would have found the ways and means to circumvent him and have that order executed, post haste (as fast as possible). I am not and have never been a ‘fan’ or ‘supporter’ of Frederick Audley Mitchell, but he was ‘correct’ in the signing of the extradition order.
Yes, there is/was a pending application for an order of Habeas Corpus, based on a ruling in another, but completely separate matter. Mr Knowles and his hot shot legal eagles are still in a position to move forward with that application later on this month, but to do so would be a waste of time; resources and extensive legal fees, in my view. Minister Mitchell would have had absolutely nothing to do with this second case, at this stage as it is still sub judice (under judicial deliberation).
As a long standing lawyer and Christian, I was ‘shocked’ to see and hear Bahamians castigating the duly elected government of The Bahamas for merely carrying out its duties and, international treaty obligations.
By: Ortland Bodie JR. from The Nassau Guardian
