Well, just in case if you did not know, the persons in those posts could not have acted if the court had not made a ruling!!!
This means that the court has just as much responsibility as those two ministries!!

i hope this gov does the right thing too when it comes up to bat .. :)

so who's hand I gat to shake then if it isnt freds :(

Fred, Allyson and Lyons!!

Rory, I dun tell you, they coming fa u next, lol.
He would have been sent anyway.
And if it was politics though, I do remember a quote from HIA in not supporting or caring for .... "20, 60, 80 or 90" remeber that quote, lol!

Men I dunno nothing bout polititricks .. what yah talkin bout? :sailing:

This means that the court has just as much responsibility as those two ministries!!


So true, do you think they both exercised their responsibility to the process?

Fred, Allyson and Lyons!!

Ok, they all get a pat on the back too .. job well done.

OK, mark the calendar. This is the first and perhaps the last time that I am in support of what Fred Mitchell did! And Dame Joan Sawyer is an aZZ.

Ninety had two extradition requests going. He lost the first one all the way to the court of last appeal. Ninety's second request had a writ of habeas corpus (deliver the sucker in front of an appeal judge) attached to it -- a tricky legal maneuver. When the appeal on the first case expired, Ninety was extraditable immediately, and Gibson (AM) and Mitchell had the ballz to do it. Fer Gawd sakes, this was perhaps the one and only time that the PLP acted expeditiously, and did the right thing.

Now maybe Fweddie is being a lil dramatic about the protection required. There has always been bad blood between Sawyer and Fweddie, and it may go back to his lawyering daze. But I support Fweddie on this one.

So you don't think that 90's boys could seek revenge???

Even though they always thought that Fred and Allyson illegally extradited 90 they were not sure until Joan Sawyer made her remarks!!

She put them in the spotlight therefore puting their lives at risk!!!

It's fine to believe that someone did something without proof but when there is proof, you are sure!!

So true, do you think they both exercised their responsibility to the process?

I thought so!!

Sawyer did alot of talking but she gave no evidence to prove that the extradition was illegal!!!

If she brought proof I would have conceded....

I like to see people being treated fairly in spite of who they are!!!! I seek truth, the whole truth but I only see half-truths so I will stick to what I know!

So you don't think that 90's boys could seek revenge???
Even though they always thought that Fred and Allyson illegally extradited 90 they were not sure until Joan Sawyer made her remarks!!
She put them in the spotlight therefore puting their lives at risk!!!
It's fine to believe that someone did something without proof but when there is proof, you are sure!!


No -- all of Ninety's boyz are holding tight, and gone to work for Pedro. No harm no foul.

Joan Sawyer on the other hand, gat real uppity somehow. Sir Burton Hall had his ceremonial opening of the Supreme Court season with pomp and pageantry (like any other country in the Commonwealth), and so Sawyer had to have one of her own, even though there is no precedent for an opening of the appeals court anywhere in the world. It is the "I Love Joan Sawyer" show.

There was so much political lies surrounding this, that no one knows really anymore. I thought it was a court order as well, but know that the court by-passing the privy council had to be wrong and out of order. Since the PC is the highest court in the land, going beyond that as I remember was wrong and the courts issuing his release is just as culpable.
Sawyer implicates not only the former ministers, but the justice who signed and certified 90s extradition.
:taped2:


Tweetie Fweddie been turning so many tricks all ova da place, anything can happen anytime. It need not be a result of Dame Joan's statement. Now he gat extra police officers to watch he behind. No pun intended. I guess.

Judge Lyons gave an order and it was carried out!!
You are right Rory!!
But you know that these FNM diehards would not disagree with anyone who seem to be on their side and has their point of view!!!
Why did she not point finger at justice Lyons???
Do you remember justice Lyons saying that he would no longer allow 90's legal team to make a mockery of the justice system but Joan sawyer made no mention about him but sort to blame the PLP members....
Sounds political to me!!!

Just a point of clarification. Justice Lyons ruling came after the extradition, not before it. Justice Lyons supported the decision of the Fred Mitchell, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs. I believe that Dame Sawyer and the learn judges spoke out of time.

It is worth mentioning that Ninety's lawyers didn't argued that Mitchell should be held in contempt of court. Therefore, Justice Lyons ruling is still the law of the land. On the other hand the Minister of Foreign Affairs is ultimately responsible for extradition.

Well, just in case if you did not know, the persons in those posts could not have acted if the court had not made a ruling!!!
This means that the court has just as much responsibility as those two ministries!!
You maybe true to a point,but the it is the right of the MOF to make sure all legal avenue was exhausted by it's citizen because it's his signature that has to endorse the rulling and in this case it wasn't.Even if the court of appeal was going to throw the case out he had a right to be there,Fred errored on that accord he along with the minister and the prime minister has the right to hold back as well because the papers would have been passed to his desk as well.This isn't to protect the drug dealer but the right as a bahamian because anyone of us would want due process to be carry out under or laws we are entitle to that.They were wrong and J S was right in what she said.

Judge Lyons gave an order and it was carried out!!
You are right Rory!!
But you know that these FNM diehards would not disagree with anyone who seem to be on their side and has their point of view!!!
Why did she not point finger at justice Lyons???
Do you remember justice Lyons saying that he would no longer allow 90's legal team to make a mockery of the justice system but Joan sawyer made no mention about him but sort to blame the PLP members....
Sounds political to me!!!
Don't forget they were the governing party common sense that was there discission and they couldn't even get that right.Some of there MP's was glad because they didn't want to repay the dude for all the money he gave them for verious things and for you'll diehards who don't believe that you'll are even crazier than i thought.The other knowles is the lucky one and he did the same thing,but sooner or later that luck is run out then you'll diehards would really hear some names call and trust me they some high names.

Everyone seems to have missed the message in the statements of Chief Justice Sawyer. The ruling in the case of Samuel Knowles is not political as some of us have made it out to be. Rather, it leaves a lot to be desired of our Justice system and should make Bahamians stop and realize that something is really wrong. Some of us are so blinded by our political beliefs, that we cannot recognize miscarriages of justices when it is staring us in the face.


There are serious ramifications when DUE PROCESS seems to get lost in our justice system. If the shoe was on one of our feet, we would have been singing a different tune. And no, you don't have to be a criminal to cheated out of your right to due process. You could buy a house and end up in court over ownership of the property and be denied due process.

The fact of the matter is that 90 had appeals pending and was entitled to be present and to have these appeals heard before being shipped away. Imagine a deathrow inmate being executed before all his appeals were exhausted, in a nutshell this is what happened to Samuel Knowles.

Both Ministers, who are both (LAWYERS) should be made to answer for what they have done, there is no excuse for what has happened. The Bahamas Government has the A.G office which should have advised the former Ministers on the matter. Yes, the court made a ruling and the ruling still stands, BUT the ruling could have been followed once due process was completed and all his cases were heard instead of shipping him out under the cover of darkness!!

Like the learned Chief Justice, we cannot ever allow this to ever happen AGAIN!

Every individual whether innocent or guilty, should be given EVERY AND ALL opportunity available to them to VIGORIOUSLY defend themselves.

so who's hand I gat to shake then if it isnt freds :(

Maybe the Privy Council.. wasn't it they who said that Ninety had to go..?

Everyone seems to have missed the message ....

The fact of the matter is that 90 had appeals pending and was entitled to be present and to have these appeals heard before being shipped away.




Ummm ... yes Ninety had an appeal pending. That was on the second extradition order. The first extradition order was totally valid. This is the point that you are missing.

Let me give you a corollary. Suppose a felon is on trial for two separate murders. He is convicted of the first. He is sentenced to die. For the second one, he is also convicted, but appeals. But he is put to death while waiting for the second appeal on the basis of the conviction of the first murder.

You see, it doesn't matter that there was appeals pending on the second case. He would have been sent anyway. It was a stalling tactic by his lawyers. It in no way negates the first valid extradition order. This is the point that you are missing. In other words, it didn't matter whether the appeal succeeded or not -- he was going anyway.