The Tribune

By LAMECH JOHNSON

Tribune Staff Reporter

ljohnson@tribunemedia.net 

TWO lawyers on record for five men fighting extradition were at odds in the Supreme Court yesterday about a new application filed by one of the five wanted by the United States on drug trafficking charges.

The initial hearing of Austin Knowles, Nathaniel Knowles, Edison Watson, Ian Bethel and Shawn Saunders challenging a magistrate’s approval of an extradition request saw Saunders’ lawyer, Osman Johnson, giving notice of his client’s intent to be heard on a constitutional motion before a Supreme Court judge in Freeport, Grand Bahama.

Senior Justice Stephen Isaacs took issue with this, seeing it as an attempt to stall a matter that had been pending since 2004 when then-magistrate Carolita Bethell approved the extradition request and committed the men to prison to await extradition. They were eventually released on bail a year later.

“There was no malintent. It was a misstep and it will not happen again,” Mr Johnson stressed.

Though Senior Justice Isaacs accepted Mr Johnson’s apology for the perceived misstep to have the matter heard before a judge not presiding over the pending habeas corpus action, Damian Gomez, QC, took issue with Mr Johnson wanting the matter to be heard apart from the substantive hearing fixed for February 29.

Mr Gomez, who with fellow QC, Elliot Lockhart and Tai Pinder, appeared for the remaining accused men, stressed that it was more convenient to have the application heard in one court for “consistent decisions” and expressed concern with the new application and the potential of it affecting the present proceedings.

Mr Johnson replied that “Saunders should be afforded every opportunity to exercise his rights enshrined in the Constitution.”

“The issues being raised can be argued in the substantive hearing for February 29,” Mr Gomez, the former state minister for legal affairs, said.

“What he’s effectively saying, if you rule against him, he will appeal. My clients who have been stuck for 13 and a half years, they now would have to wait. That can’t be fair to my clients. They’ll be in limbo through no fault of their own. It’s a matter of principle,” Mr Gomez stressed.

However, Mr Johnson countered that in “these matters, each applicant has a separate position” and that his client feels that Articles 15, 19, 20 of the Constitution have been breached.

“We’ve followed the law which is to file a motion seeking constitutional relief,” Mr Johnson added.

Mr Gomez said if Mr Johnson’s client was of that view “then perhaps he can have a separate habeas corpus heard?”

“Why would I do that?” the judge asked before ruling that Saunders’ application for relief “cannot be heard in the absence of the other defendants”.

“Given the possible adverse effect of the application, all applications will be heard on February 29, 2016,” the judge said before adjourning the matter.

Neil Braithwaite appeared for the Crown in yesterday’s hearing.

Last May, Mr Gomez confirmed that he had asked Prime Minister Perry Christie to transfer him from the Ministry of Legal Affairs because of concerns about matters related to the Office of the Attorney General, where files of some men he once represented could not be found.

He was referring to the Knowles brothers, who he represented before being elected to office, and are members of his constituency in South Eleuthera. Despite his concerns, he was not transferred from the post. However, Mr Gomez quit his Cabinet post in December, later revealing it was because of an ongoing business dispute with the Bank of the Bahamas, a government owned entity.