Attorney General's Office Knew Warner Claim Was False Since 2016, High Court Finds

The Attorney General’s Office was aware since 2016 that no distinct or bespoke specialty arrangement existed with the United States regarding the extradition of Jack Warner. High Court Judge Karen Reid found that the office instead made positive representations to the Privy Council, asserting such an arrangement was in place.

In a detailed 71-page judgment, Justice Reid expressed significant concerns about the conduct of the Attorney General’s Office under then-attorney general Faris Al-Rawi. She found it difficult to accept explanations from Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes regarding why the High Court and Court of Appeal were not informed of the true situation. Justice Reid concluded that an initial "understandable misunderstanding" evolved into "deliberate avoidance wholly inconsistent with the expected standards of candour and forthrightness."

“

Not only was this not true, this was known by the Attorney General to not be true since 2016.

By the time Warner’s case reached the Privy Council, Justice Reid determined, the Attorney General had not only failed to correct the record but actively misrepresented the existence of a bespoke specialty arrangement. "Not only was this not true, this was known by the Attorney General to not be true since 2016," Justice Reid stated. She noted that the Attorney General continued these representations during the oral hearing before the Board, whose judgment was based on this false premise.

These findings were central to Justice Reid’s decision to permanently halt Warner’s extradition to the United States, granting the former FIFA vice-president a significant legal victory after over a decade of litigation. The judge ruled that Warner’s constitutional rights had been violated and ordered the State to pay him damages and legal costs. The case centered on a Certificate of Specialty signed by Al-Rawi in September 2015, which claimed special protections for Warner upon extradition. Justice Reid found no underlying separate arrangement supported this certificate.

“

deliberate avoidance wholly inconsistent with the expected standards of candour and forthrightness