The High Court has permanently stopped extradition proceedings against former FIFA vice-president Jack Warner, ruling that the continuation of the proceedings breached his constitutional right to liberty.
In a judgment delivered by Justice Devindra Rampersad Reid, the court found that the issuance of an Authority to Proceed (ATP) in the absence of an arrangement with the United States guaranteeing the protections on specialty required under section 8(3) of the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act, Chap. 12:04, constituted a breach of Warner’s rights.
The court also declared that representations made in previous proceedings that a special or bespoke specialty arrangement existed between Trinidad and Tobago and the United States in relation to Warner constituted breaches of his constitutional rights.
Justice Reid ordered that the extradition proceedings against Warner be permanently stayed and directed the Attorney General to pay damages for the breaches of his constitutional rights.
The Attorney General was also ordered to pay Warner’s costs, certified fit for Senior and Junior Counsel.
The assessment of damages has been fixed for a case management conference on September 30, 2026.
The extradition proceedings against Warner began in 2015 after the United States requested his extradition in relation to alleged money laundering offences involving Warner and other persons associated with FIFA.
A Provisional Warrant was issued for Warner’s arrest on May 27, 2015. He surrendered the same day and was released on bail the following day.
On July 16, 2015, the United States formally requested Warner’s extradition, and on September 21, 2015, then Attorney General Faris Al Rawi issued an Authority to Proceed under the Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act, allowing formal proceedings to begin before the Magistrate.
Warner challenged the legality of the Authority to Proceed through judicial review proceedings. Those proceedings were dismissed by the High Court in 2017.
His appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed in 2019, and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council later dismissed his appeal in December 2022, allowing the extradition proceedings to resume before the Magistrate.
The proceedings recommenced before the then Chief Magistrate, after which Warner raised constitutional issues concerning alleged breaches of his rights.
The court heard that during earlier proceedings, Warner’s legal team sought disclosure of a specialty arrangement between Trinidad and Tobago and the United States.
According to Justice Reid’s judgment, during an inter-partes hearing in December 2015, counsel for the Attorney General indicated that a specialty arrangement had been entered into between the two countries regarding Warner and offered to disclose a copy.
A document was later provided to Warner’s attorneys, but the judgment states that it was not the specialty arrangement requested.
Instead, the document was a certificate dated September 21, 2015, signed by then Attorney General Faris Al Rawi, which stated that an arrangement had been made pursuant to section 8(3) of the Act.
Warner’s attorneys later argued that the document was only a certificate indicating that a specialty arrangement existed and was not the actual arrangement itself.
Justice Reid’s judgment states that the requested arrangement was never produced because there was no bespoke specialty arrangement between Trinidad and Tobago and the United States regarding Warner.
The judge found that the failure to correct the record, and subsequent representations made to the Privy Council regarding the existence of such an arrangement, breached the Attorney General’s duty of candour.
Justice Reid said the conduct resulted in “a course of misrepresentation” which deprived Warner of the opportunity to promptly challenge the Authority to Proceed and obtain relief.
She said the seriousness of the conduct “cannot be overstated” and that making representations to a court that are known to be false in order to influence proceedings amounted to an abuse of the court’s process.
However, Justice Reid noted that she did not find that, at the time the Certificate of Specialty was issued, the then Attorney General was certifying the existence of a bespoke specialty arrangement that did not exist.
She said the certificate appeared to have been referring to the specialty protections contained within the extradition treaty itself.
