The last Belizean whose extradition has been requested by the United States for allegedly being involved in drug trafficking is Mark Seawell. Seawell has been imprisoned since February 2007, when a request was made by US authorities for his extradition.
On Wednesday, April 15, his attorney, Elson Kaseke, argued in a submission before Chief Magistrate Margaret Gabb-McKenzie that under the provisions of the Extradition Treaty between Belize and the United States, Belize’s Foreign Minister did not have the authority to order the arrest of his client on the basis of the US extradition request.
According to the US extradition request, Mark Seawell is wanted in connection with twenty-seven drug-related charges. In 1997, Mark and his brother, Gary, were named as co-conspirators in a U.S. Federal drug indictment.
Then in April 2007, another of Seawell’s brothers, Duane Seawell, was whisked off the island nation of Jamaica by US agents and taken to the US to face a drug trafficking trial. In December 2007, he pleaded guilty to drug trafficking and was sentenced to seventeen years in a federal prison.
This morning, Chief Magistrate Gabb-McKenzie issued her ruling on the submission of Seawell’s attorney on the question of the Foreign Minister’s authority to issue an arrest warrant to commence extradition proceedings against Seawell.
In her ruling the Chief Magistrate said: … “Counsel for the defendant, in his submission, urged the Court to look at Section 9 of the Extradition Act of Belize and to make a determination as to whether the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belize has the authority to issue an order to the Chief Magistrate directing that extradition proceedings be commenced in respect of an offender in this matter of Mark Seawell.”
The prosecution, which was represented by Crown Counsel Priscilla Banner, had replied that “there was no defect in Section 9 of Extradition Act of Belize.”
“The effect of section 9”, the Chief Magistrate maintained, “was to bring the latest Belize/USA Extradition Treaty on the same footing as previous treaties and to apply the same scheme of Extradition Acts to the new treaty.
“The Court, after hearing both sides, agrees that Section 9 of the Act does not expressly make reference to the 1870 Act because by Virtue of the 1919 Extradition Ordinance, the said Act was already a part of the Laws of Belize, existing at the time of independence.”
Chief Magistrate McKenzie ruled that: “It would have been quite unlikely for the legislators to create a lacuna in the legislation to allow a prisoner awaiting extradition to be discharged because the Minister of Foreign Affairs has no authority to issue an order to the Chief Magistrate to commence extradition proceedings; that would be flying in the face of the contracting state, with no regard to its treaty obligations. The Court’s job is to interpret the law and (it) is not entitled to say that Parliament has made a mistake, but rather, to interpret and apply current law as embodied in the statute in question.”
“Pacta Sunt Servanda”, the Chief Magistrate continued, “is a rule which predates international law. Once in force, treaties are binding and must be performed in good faith. A state may not in particular justify non-observance by reference to any impediment of its municipal law. The 1870 Act was not repealed and remained workable and is the Legal Authority in extradition matters. The 1919 Extradition Ordinance was never repealed and is reflected in the current Extradition Act of Belize. The Court is of the view that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had full legal power and authority to issue the order to the Chief Magistrate directing that extradition proceedings be commenced in respect of Mark Seawell.
The proceedings will therefore continue to be heard by the Court.”