However, Dataram’s case is not yet closed as attorney Anil Nandlall indicated that he would advise the state to challenge the magistrate’s ruling. Crime Chief Seelall Persaud petitioned for the arrest warrant a short while after Dataram was arrested and his lawyers had stated that it was unconstitutional.
In her ruling, Robertson stated that after reviewing the arguments put forward by the defence and Persaud, she would only deal with whether a person had the right to be heard at this stage of a petition for an arrest warrant, whether the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009 and the Fugitive Offenders Act could be read together and applied and whether the process that the Crime Chief used in making the request for the arrest warrant was properly initiated. She said that other matters raised by the defence and Nandlall, who represented Persaud, in her opinion were not pertinent at the current stage.
Dataram stood silently in the dock of the court with a blank expression during the proceedings.
As it related to whether or not the request for the arrest warrant was properly initiated by Persaud, she again cited precedent that states that an extradition proceeding should commence when a request is received by the magistrate from the country to which the individual is to be extradited. She said that at no point in time did she receive the request and therefore she would not be able to properly proceed with the matter and consequently the Authority to Proceed issued by the Minister of Home Affairs was void and of no legal effect from the beginning of this matter.
Therefore, she ruled that permission was not given to Persaud on the swearing of information upon oath for the arrest of Dataram for the purpose of committal and she urged that “the Minister of Home Affairs should be respectfully advised as such.” The oath which was signed by Persaud and was to be sworn to on February 18 was objected to by attorney Vic Puran.
The oath was presented to the court for the purpose of issuing an arrest warrant for Dataram for the purpose of committal under the Fugitive Amendment Act of 2009.
The documents that were laid over to the magistrate to support this request by Persaud were copies of an indictment and an arrest warrant, both issued in the US, along with a certification of truth of those documents, an Authority to Proceed from the Ministry of Home Affairs and three unsigned copies of an arrest warrant.
Nandlall had told the court that a request for Dataram to be extradited was issued by the US Government and Puran requested that the magistrate check to see if this was so. The magistrate then informed that she did not have any such document. On February 24, Nandlall laid over what he stated was the request that was dated in 2007, along with his written submission of what it stated. However, on March 4, the magistrate made inquiries about the letter of request, which she said was a document that only made mention of another note which was the request for the arrest warrant for Dataram to be extradited. She said that this letter was not the request.
Nandlall then informed the court that neither he nor the court was in possession of the request from the US Government. He, however, presented a document from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that he stated confirmed that it had received a request for the extradition of Dataram.
He told the magistrate that the letter which only cited the request should satisfy the court at this stage of the proceedings.
Speaking to Stabroek News after the magistrate ruled, attorney Glen Hanoman stated that it was ridiculous for the Minister of Home Affairs to request that a court commence or take steps that will lead to an extradition of a person to the US without any current request from the US Government that stated it was still interested in the case. Hanoman stated, “It is clear that there is a feeling in the executive arm of government that the recent amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Act would pave the way for extraditions.” He, however, stated that it is also obvious that the way in which Persaud went about petitioning for the arrest warrant was unconstitutional. Meanwhile, Nandlall stated that “in the magistrate’s view we did not produce the actual request from the US Government but at this stage of the proceedings we are not required to.” He went on to say that “we have the original document that will be produced at the appropriate time.” He also stated that in his view he had satisfied all the legal criteria for an arrest warrant to be issued for Dataram.
