Consequent upon his legal logjam with the US
authorities over an alleged drug involvement which requires his extradition
into the US, PDP bigwig, Prince Kashamu Buruji has reacted to the recent news making
the rounds on the issue. According to a press statement made available to National
Enquirer, below are the views of the political stalwart over the matter which
is already generating international attention.
INTRODUCTION:
I wish to provide an update to Nigerians on my efforts to obtain justice within
the U.S. judicial system in regard to the false indictment made against me in
the U.S. Courts, which the British courts have cleared me from unequivocally.
As many may recall I had to take the battle to the U.S. authorities in their
own country because, despite the British judgment and the defeats they have
suffered in their attempts to place a false accusation on me they have neither
attempted to extradite me again nor withdrawn the charges.
MY FIRST ATTACK ON THE INDICTMENT:
I had in 2009 attacked the unjustifiable indictment retained made against me on
the basis that the English Judiciary, which the U.S. authorities had themselves
instigated against me, had exonerated me. In that application to dismiss the
indictment I requested that the findings and Conclusions of District Judge Tim
Workman of the Bow Street Magistrates Court in London, be given collateral
estoppel status by the U.S. court and his findings and conclusions be made
conclusive on the issue of whether or not I was a party to the alleged crime.
District Judge Norgle before whom the indictment was pending refused the
application after ruling that I was not a fugitive from justice in the U.S.
I appealed against Norgle’s decision refusing to dismiss the indictment to the
U.S 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. The panel led by Judge Posner a
well-respected judge in the U.S. judicial system agreed with the District
Judge.
In his judgment then, Judge Posner had made some wide-ranging generalized
statements, which were not borne out by the records. However, as the Supreme
Court of the U.S. rarely takes an appeal that complains merely about findings
of fact, the Supreme Court did not hear my appeal from that judgment.
In that judgment Judge Posner held that the decision of the English Courts were
not equivalent to that of the U.S. courts and so could not be regarded as
binding on the U.S. courts.
However, as the lawyers noted, U.S. courts expect their judgments to be treated
better by foreign courts.
MY SECOND ATTACK ON THE INDICTMENT:
This update is about my second attempt to dismiss this indictment. This second
attempt was based on my contention that the indictment pending before Judge
Norgle has now expired by effluxion of time by reason of the Speedy trial
requirement of U.S. constitutional and criminal law and was consequently
statute barred. Many cases in the U.S. in which prosecution had not started
after 5 years of the charge have been dismissed for this reason.
Judge Norgle had characteristically rejected the application.
I therefore applied to the U.S. 7th circuit Court of Appeals for an order of
mandamus directing the District Judge to dismiss the indictment.
Judgment was delivered on the 15th of September 2014 by the Court of Appeals in
respect of that application for mandamus.
Judge Posner delivered the leading judgment of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
again.
MY COMMENTS ON THE NEW COURT OF APPEALS JUDGMENT:
I have several complaints against that judgment and my lawyers are exploring
the opportunities available for appeal.
However before my political adversaries begin the usual perversion of truth I
wish to make the following comments on the judgment for the records.
Again Mr. Posner has ignored the facts on record and the findings of the
English Courts in coming to his conclusions that:
I have no rights under the American Constitution because I have never been in
the United States and “it would be very odd that someone with so attenuated a
connection to the United States would have rights under the US Constitution”.
“but no matter; even if the government is incorrect and Kashamu does have
constitutional rights, he still loses, because they haven’t been violated”.
B. In working his way to these conclusions, he had already made, Judge Posner
wrongly finds that only two options are available to me:
The first is to “return” to the U.S. and “stand trial and at the trial renew
his motion for dismissal on the basis of the speedy trial clause”
The second “is to obtain from us, as he is trying to do, a writ of mandamus
ordering the District court to dismiss the indictment”.
C. Judge Posner comes to these wrong conclusions in order to create a scenario
of a stalemate between me and the U.S authorities whereby he posits that I will
not come to the U.S. to fall into the clutches of the U.S. judiciary and that
the U.S. authorities in turn have little hope of ever extraditing me to the U.S
in view of my prominence in Nigeria and the findings of the British Courts,
thus he then surmises: “as he won’t risk the first path to relief, which would
require him to come to the United States and fall into the clutches of the
federal judiciary, he must rely entirely on mandamus”
He then proceeds to reject the application for mandamus for the reason that I
have not come to the U.S. to “face the judicial music”.
D. Judge Posner in building the stalemate
scenario then expresses his disbelief in the U.S. Government’s statement, in
response to my application, that it has now found the atmosphere in Nigeria
more favourable for my extradition to the U.S. and responds to their vaunted
optimism as follows:
“But the government may be whistling in the dark in saying that its optimistic
about being able to extradite him from Nigeria (no doubt it was optimistic
about being able to extradite him from the United Kingdom). The proof of the
pudding is in the eating: the government has not tried to extradite Kashamu
from Nigeria and for all we know may be feigning “optimism” in order to
undermine Kashamu’s claim that the threat of extradition is a sword of Damocles
disrupting his life without our government’s having to undergo the expense and
uncertainty of seeking extradition of a foreign big shot exonerated (though
only partly) by the judiciary of our British ally. Given Kashamu’s prominence
in Nigerian business and government circles, and the English Magistrate’s
findings and conclusion, the probability of extradition may actually be low.”
Judge Posner in conclusion, for the above reason, finds in favour of the U.S.
government, that it has no duty to attempt any extradition of any suspect
charged for an offence in the U.S. since all it need do is to inform that
suspect that a charge has been made against him in the U.S. and that suspect
thereupon becomes duty bound to take the next plane to the U.S. at his own
expense to challenge the charge and prove his innocence.
Mr. Posner feigns ignorance of the statistics
that show a serious racial prejudice against blacks and foreigners (especially
from developing countries) by the mainly white dominated federal judiciary of
the United States.
However, his own prejudice is quite patent in the casual manner has treated
this important matter and attempts to “call a dog a bad name in order to hang
it”.
The use of the phrase “though only partly” to
qualify his own concession that the British judiciary had “exonerated” me again
shows that Judge Posner either lacks a thorough grasp of his own record or is
being mischievous. The statement of the British court which he refers to as
only part exoneration is as follows: “As a result of the evidence that the
Defence has placed before me and the evidence which the government has tendered
in rebuttal, I find the following facts: that the defendant has a brother who
bears a striking resemblance to him; I am satisfied that the defendant’s
brother was one of the co-conspirators in the drugs importation which involved
Catherine and Ellen Wolters…
“I am however satisfied that the overwhelming evidence here is such that the
identification evidence, already tenuous, has now been so undermined as to make
it incredible and valueless. In those circumstances, there is then no prima
facie case against the defendant and I propose to discharge him.”
If this clear judgment of “the judiciary of their British ally” is only part
exoneration one wonders what more the U.S. judges want or what is really behind
this persecution.
E. Finally, Mr. Posner apparently intent on changing a fundamental principle of
criminal and International Human rights law, then places upon a suspect who has
never been in the U.S. before (merely upon being informed of allegations
against him before a U.S. Court) the responsibility to buy a cheap ticket from
www.priceline.com, come to the U.S. to surrender himself into the arms of the
U.S. judiciary (to prove his innocence of the charges against him?) and, as
recommended by him, in my case, to face a possible life sentence before a judge
whose mind is already made up even without evidence.
CONCLUSION:
I do not believe that justice has been done. And it is not over yet.
Buruji Kashamu
18th September 2014.
