LONDON, United Kingdom (CMC) — The London-based Privy Council has reserved judgment in an appeal filed by the former vice-president of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) and former senior Trinidad and Tobago Government minister, Jack Warner regarding his extradition to the United States.

Warner is questioning whether the Extradition (United States of America) Order is unlawful and ultra vires the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act. He is also questioning whether the decision of the Trinidad and Tobago attorney general to issue an authority to proceed in respect of the USA’s extradition request against him is unlawful on the ground of breach of his right to procedural fairness.

Warner’s appeal is also based on whether the attorney general acted in conformity with the Constitution of Trinidad and Tobago.

The Privy Council is Trinidad and Tobago’s highest court and on Thursday the five-panel judges deferred their decision in the appeal after hearing two days of submissions from lawyers representing Warner and the Office of the Attorney General.

In a 50-page judgment, delivered in September 2017, High Court Judge James Aboud agreed that there were minor inconsistencies between the treaty and legislation, but said Warner’s concerns were exaggerated and speculative.

Justice Aboud also noted that Warner’s rights would be protected during the eventual extradition proceedings before Chief Magistrate Maria Busby-Earle-Caddle as she would have to apply local laws to the charges against him alleged in the US extradition request.

In July 2019, the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling.

Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, in presenting his submissions before the Privy Council, said that the treaty between this country and the United States was not in conformity with the extradition legislation as it had the potential to infringe fundamental constitutional rights.

“This is not a case of proportionality or rationality…it is whether it is legal or not legal,” Hosein said, noting that while the executive had the power to enter into international treaties as part of its foreign policy, such activity should not breach the rights of citizens or remove parliamentary sovereignty.

Warner’s other attorney, Clare Montgomery, QC, said that the then Attorney General Faris Al-Rawi acted unfairly toward Warner.

She argued the purpose of the conformity requirement was not just to provide protection under domestic law but to provide the individual with protection in the US to ensure that that country did not go beyond its treaty obligations.