Over the last two decades or so, various Caricom, and indeed Caribbean governments generally, have come under pressure from the United States authorities to extradite individuals deemed by the US to be involved in the trans-Caribbean drug trade. We can recall the notorious case of the individual, Charles ‘Little Nut’ Miller, who took refuge in St Kitts for many years in the early 1990s, and who, it was widely believed at the time, the St Kitts and Nevis authorities had difficulty in handing over. Here in Guyana, we have witnessed intense efforts by the US to ensure the extradition of various individuals, that country going to the limit of seeking the active cooperation of the Government of Trinidad & Tobago to ensure that it could achieve its ends. And it is known that the US authorities are pursuing other persons, some in the Eastern Caribbean zone.
As has been emphasized by Jamaica government authorities recently, and often during the last few months, they have cooperated frequently with the US in this matter of extradition, particularly as it has related to persons involved in the drug trade, and particularly the cocaine trade emanating from Colombia. But, as is increasingly becoming widely known in this region, the government has hiccuped in responding to a current American request for the transfer to the US of an individual alleged to be heavily involved in the trade. The government has been resisting all pressures, external and internal, to comply with the request.
There has been much speculation about the reasons for the Jamaica government’s resistance to proceeding as it normally has, such speculation involving the behaviour of the governing political elite, as a result of the fact that the individual, Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke for many years has been said to be the leading ‘Don’ – an alleged drug baron-cum political influential – in the constituency now held by Prime Minister Bruce Golding, and once held by former Prime Minister Edward Seaga. So what is interesting in this case has been the direct intervention – by way of justifying resistance to the American claim – by leading members of the governing Jamaica Labour Party Cabinet, who also double as leading party officials, seeking to insist that the Government of the United States has not proceeded properly in this matter, and is therefore not entitled to receive a positive response.
The involvement in Jamaican political parties (as in parties in many other Caricom countries) with persons and groups involved in the drug trade, and very often their use of these individuals as “political enforcers and financiers” is certainly not the surprising element in this present controversy. What is new is, first, the prolonged period of stalling, and more that that the vocal official justification of the stalling which has taken place, even as the Americans have insisted that they see no reason to change their minds about their request. Secondly, there has been the extensive involvement of the highest official legal authorities in the land, including the Solicitor General and the Attorney General; persistent denials by the Prime Minister himself of any sinister motives in the government’s behavior; and now the revelations by Mr Golding that his party officials had sought to employ an American legal firm to intervene at virtually the highest political level in order to put a stop to the American judicial officers’ request for extradition. That Mr Golding has, in the last week, had in effect to confess that it was he who had authorized this latest political manoeuvre, but did so in his capacity as Party Leader but not as Prime Minister, has come as a thunderbolt in the country, leading to widespread calls for his resignation.
Mr Golding, as is expected in our region, has refused to consider the possibility of resignation, claiming that he was dealing with the matter politically and not on behalf of the state. In fact, it can easily be surmised that an interpretation of his behaviour might well be that in the matter of dealing with a judicial issue, a party leader has authority equivalent to that of a prime minister – surely an incredible and dangerous interpretation. But this sort of view indeed has, in practice, a certain pedigree among many of our political elite holding executive office. They refuse to accept the boundaries between political party office and state executive office, a view encouraged by their continued suggestions to their followers that they can use the state in a partisan fashion. In turn the situation has come to be that the followers are hugely disappointed if they do not act in this way, with the ultimate threat of giving their support to the opposition. And now, Mr Golding, with long experience in parliamentary politics – both in government and in opposition – seeks to formally translate into a legality what is in fact an unseemly partisan political practice: the ultimate and usual justification that the other side has done the same in the past.
But if this were not serious enough, and whether the Prime Minister would accept it or not, his current behaviour would seem to also hold a view of politics that claims legitimacy beyond the boundaries of his own state. For he is in fact giving a demonstration of one of the serious flaws of our own Caricom leaders’ conduct of politics, which is that there tends to be a refusal to accept that there is a legitimate division of powers in the constitutions of our states, and real limits to where the executive can intervene. In seeking to use his party (and undoubtedly his prime ministerial office) to intervene in the political process of the United States to influence a judicial matter, Mr Golding has behaved as if in the United States itself, there is no acceptance and observation of the limits to executive power. In turn, however, he has been severely rebuffed by the American judicial authorities, who insist that they are not subject to such influences and will continue to pursue their objective. As countries like Guyana have found out, particularly in respect of the American preoccupation with the trade in narcotics, the judicial wheels grind slowly, but persistently.
Mr Golding’s behaviour also suggests another mistaken belief. And this is that authorities external to our region can be easily frightened or sidetracked, even in judicial matters, by claims that certain kinds of acts indicate an infringement of another country’s – in this case Jamaica’s – sovereignty. But, contrary to what is believed by our administrations, the governments accused of such breaches of national sovereignty, in this case the United States, also proceed by observing whether the claim of breach is accepted substantially by the citizens of the accusing country itself, as well as making its own judgement. Observers of the present events will note that many of the interest groups in Jamaica – from the churches, through the business sector, the media and many professional groups – are not accepting the legitimacy of the claim of breach of sovereignty. They seem to be saying that the Golding government is making a false assertion of the legitimacy of sovereignty versus the observance and implementation of law.
This really is the Achilles heel of Mr Goldling’s present behaviour. To accept what the American judicial authorities are saying – that they will persevere in the request for extradition – is not, for citizens of Jamaica, or any Caricom country, to “take their side” as some will claim. It is to insist on taking the side of insisting to the Jamaican authorities that their case is weak, and that they really must come better than that. Over to Mr Golding.
