Warner wins landmark 11-year extradition case

Former FIFA vice-president Jack Warner has secured a landmark legal victory, permanently halting the 11-year extradition process to the United States. The High Court ruled that the state violated his constitutional rights by unlawfully pursuing the case.

In a detailed judgment, Madame Justice Karen Reid found that the continuation of the extradition proceedings breached Warner's constitutional rights. This was primarily due to the Authority to Proceed (ATP), which initiated the extradition process, being issued without the necessary legal safeguards mandated by Trinidad and Tobago’s Extradition (Commonwealth and Foreign Territories) Act. Furthermore, Justice Reid determined that the Office of the Attorney General repeatedly misled the courts. They had represented that a special arrangement, known as the international “specialty rule,” existed between Trinidad and Tobago and the United States to protect Warner, when in fact no such arrangement was in place.

Justice Reid ordered a permanent stay of the extradition proceedings against Warner. She also awarded him damages for the breaches of his constitutional rights and directed the Attorney General to cover his legal costs. The assessment of damages is scheduled for a case management conference on September 30, 2026.

The central argument in Warner's constitutional claim revolved around the "specialty rule." This established principle of extradition law stipulates that a person surrendered to another country can only be prosecuted for the offenses for which extradition was granted. Section 8(3) of the Extradition Act clearly states that an ATP cannot be lawfully issued unless adequate specialty protections are in place. The judge found that no such arrangement existed when the ATP was issued in September 2015, leading to the declaration that Warner's constitutional rights were breached.

Justice Reid was critical of the Office of the Attorney General's conduct. While acknowledging that an initial misunderstanding might have occurred, the court found that the state had a duty to correct the record once it became aware that no bespoke arrangement existed. Instead, the judgment indicates, the state allowed the courts to proceed based on a false premise, which the judge deemed a serious breach of the state's duty of candour.