Gary Seawell, a Belizean for whom the United States has issued an extradition request, after a grand jury indicted him on drug trafficking and money laundering charges, has mounted his first legal challenge since Belize Chief Magistrate Ann Marie Smith ruled last October that the US has a prima facie case—and Seawell should be extradited.

Seawell, under police guard, sat in the courtroom of Supreme Court Justice Michelle Arana this morning, as his attorney, Arthur Saldivar, made submissions in an application for a writ of habeas corpus. But after more than two hours of legal wrangling between Saldivar and the Crown Counsel from the office of the Solicitor General, Illana Swift, who is representing the U.S., Justice Arana told the parties that she would inform them when she is ready to deliver her ruling on the application.

The effect of the ruling, when it is delivered, will either free Seawell, who has been in prison since his arrest in 2010, or will uphold the Chief Magistrate’s decision to extradite him to stand trial in the U.S. state of Ohio, where he was indicted 12 years before U.S. authorities activated the extradition request to the Belize government.

Saldivar told the court, “Seawell did not get a fair hearing here and if he is sent to the U.S., he will not get a fair hearing there. To extradite him would be oppressive and unjust.”

But the major portions of Saldivar’s arguments centered on the documents in the extradition “bundle” that the U.S. is relying on for Seawell’s extradition.

“Hear-say evidence is inadmissible under the 1870 Extradition Act,” Saldivar argued. He told the court that the test of the Extradition Treaty between Belize and the U.S. was not met, “because the Chief Magistrate relied on hear-say evidence that were not admissible.”

“None of the purported documents contained the oath that is required”, he submitted, and went on to state “it is not a minor discrepancy, as stated by the Chief Magistrate. The documents that comprise the committal bundle are in fatal non-compliance of law.”

Citing Belize’s Indictable Procedures Act, Saldivar contended that the documents cannot pass muster under the laws of Belize. But Saldivar’s assertion that his client did not get a fair hearing caused Crown Counsel Swift to raise an objection. She told the court that Saldivar did not raise that point in his application, and he should “stick to the grounds of his application.”

Justice Arana told Swift that she had noted her objection. Saldivar then closed his arguments, telling the court, “It is the submission of the applicant that the writ of habeas corpus be granted, as there are compelling reasons to do so.”

Swift began her submissions by reminding the court that “this is an application for a writ of habeas corpus; it is not an appeal of the Chief Magistrate’s decision.”

Swift argued that the Court of Appeal had decided that hear-say evidence is admissible in extradition cases. “The Chief Magistrate was required to look at the substance of the evidence before her,” she told the court.

“Unfair trial before the Chief Magistrate —we maintain that this was not a ground in the application for a writ of habeas corpus. It is an abuse of process to come with additional grounds,” Swift said.

After citing a number of judicial authorities, Swift told the court that the applicant (Seawell) must present clear evidence that he would not get a fair trial in the U.S.

In countering Saldivar’s contention that the documents are legally flawed, Swift told the court, “It is not for us to determine that these documents are admissible in the U.S. That is for a U.S. judge to determine.”

But in his response to her submissions, Saldivar said: “The authorities cited by my learned friend bears no relevance to the lawfulness of the detention.”

He said where hear-say is to be admitted, the documents that introduce it must be made under oath.

“Belize law requires a specific obligation that the oath maker acknowledges that they are under an obligation to tell the truth,” said Saldivar. He added, “There are no provisions in law to examine documents that are not legal in nature.”

Following the hearing, Saldivar told reporters that what was argued before the Chief Magistrate is essentially what was argued this morning, that Section 14 and 15 of the UK 1870 Extradition Act speaks to the issue of oath and on the face of it, the maker understands their obligation to tell the truth and appreciates that they would be liable to the penalty of perjury, if they should tell a lie. The document cannot be called a deposition or a statement under oath. The Belize law also speaks to this in Section 32 of the Indictable Procedures Act, Saldivar explained.

He said that bail has been granted in a number of extradition cases in Belize. But in this particular case, “we are not seeking bail; we are seeking his freedom, because the detention is unlawful,” he said.

(A writ of habeas corpus is a judicial mandate to a prison official ordering that an inmate be brought to the court so it can be determined whether or not that person is imprisoned lawfully and whether or not he should be released from custody. A habeas corpus petition is a petition filed with a court by a person who objects to his own or another’s detention or imprisonment. The petition must show that the court ordering the detention or imprisonment made a legal or factual error. (Lectric Law Library))