Queen’s Counsel James Lewis, who was retained by former attorney general John Jeremie on the Steve Ferguson/Ish Galbaransingh extradition matter, had said it was unlawful, unconstitutional and unfair to simply surrender a person to a requesting state without an opportunity to challenge the extradition.
Lewis had stated that in a witness statement in 2012 concerning the defamation matter between Attorney General Anand Ramlogan and PNM leader Keith Rowley.
He had been instructed by former AG Jeremie to advise the State and prosecute extradition proceedings against Ferguson and Galbaransingh by the US.
Lewis led a team, including attorney Douglas Mendes and David West, then with the Central Authority. Lewis was later kept on by PP administration AG Ramlogan .
Lewis’ witness statement noted that he had advised that the defendants should be able to exercise their legal rights by seeking judicial review of the AG’s decision pursuant to Section 16 of the Extradition Act and this was a “perfectly normal and proper.”
Ramlogan said yesterday: “I kept him on because of his impressive impeccable credentials as an acknowledged expert in the field of extradition and he advised me throughout the matter.
“There was no need for me to rely on anyone else’s opinion because Mr Lewis had been retained by the former PNM administration and had excellent qualifications with the relevant institutional memory of the case.”
Ramlogan is now at the centre of an issue concerning West, now Police Complaints Authority chairman, following allegations that six days before West was appointed PCA director, Ramlogan asked him to withdraw his witness statement in the defamation lawsuit, involving PNM’s Rowley, relating to the failed extradition involving Section 34 applicants Ferguson and Galbaransingh in exchange for him being selected for the PCA job.
In Lewis’s witness statement in the defamation matter between Ramlogan and Rowley on the extradition issue Lewis gave a procedural history of the matter. The statement noted that Lewis was contacted by Ramlogan for advice in election to his jurisdiction and decision making in the extradition issue.
Lewis said Ramlogan asked if he wanted the help of local counsel who had been appointed by the then AG (Jeremie) to work with him on the case. However, Lewis said he didn’t think it was necessary at that stage.
He said he advised Ramlogan the decision needed to be carefully examined and reasoned and there was need for caution and fairness as the defendants would closely analyse the decision if it was averse to them to ensure it complied with public law principles.
Lewis stated that even though he had been told by those in the Central Authority—where West had worked—that the requesting state makes an extradition order and the defendant isn’t given time to make a judicial review and is surrendered to the requesting state, it was inconceivable that could happen in the UK.
Lewis said to give a person affected by a legal decision no opportunity to challenge such a decision was unfair, unconstitutional and unlawful. He said it was inconceivable that such a situation could happen in the UK and never did.
He said he advised the Central Authority on the phone that they should collect all the various documents and representation and put them before the AG so he could make a reasoned decision and further advised the AG and Central Authority.
An affidavit by Sunita Harrikissoon, a legal officer of the authority, corroborated that, noting Lewis’ functions in his discharge as “team leader of the Central Authority.”
She said the essential points of his advice were that the AG should consider if it would be wrong or oppressive in all the circumstances to issue a warrant of surrender regarding the claimants, he should consider the claimants’ representations very carefully and not rush his decision, the decision whether to order the surrender of the claimants was separate and the decision was an independent one, and “was for him and him alone.”