The Tribune

By RASHAD ROLLE

Tribune News Editor

rrolle@tribunemedia.net

A SUPREME Court judge said he regretted the “unacceptable” and “inexcusable” length of time it took him to issue his judgement on Samuel “Ninety” Knowles’ legal action against government officials who surrendered him to the United States in 2006 before his habeas corpus application was heard in The Bahamas as scheduled.

Supreme Court Justice Andrew Forbes said the court is “fully responsible for the obvious delay”. However, he noted there was limited follow-up by Knowles’ lawyer or the respondents to get the ruling.

“It should be acknowledged that it has taken far longer than it should have for a decision to be rendered in this matter and that this is wholly the fault of the court and unacceptable,” he wrote, noting recent decisions indicating it should not take more than six months to issue a judgement unless a case is unusually difficult or complex.

“The court also noted that no explanation was offered for the delay. This court without seeking to offer any excuses, will note that the current court was sitting in an acting capacity at the time the matter was transferred from then Acting Chief Justice Isaacs (deceased). That after hearing the matter the decision was reserved, however, in the process the court was reassigned to the Magistrate’s Court and unfortunately the court forgot the commitment to render a finding. It was only recently brought to the attention of the court that the matter was outstanding. It is extremely regrettable given the significance of the issues raised by this case.”

 In 2017, Knowles argued his constitutional rights were violated when he was extradited from the country before his second extradition application had been heard. He sought a declaration that his removal violated his right to the protection of the law, his right to remain in the country unless lawfully extradited and his right to access the courts for determination of his civil rights.

 Government lawyers argued Knowles abused the process by bringing his application 10 years after he was extradited and said a judicial review process would have been the more appropriate legal action.

 In response, Knowles’ lawyers noted that the Court of Appeal had acknowledged the injustice their client experienced when he was extradited before his habeas corpus application was dealt with, but provided no relief.

 In ruling against Knowles, Justice Forbes said the man’s lawyers failed to set particular grounds for his pleadings. He rejected the affidavit of Ntieado Knowles, the son of Samuel Knowles, finding it did not meet Supreme Court requirements.