ConCourt to Decide on Extradition Powers: NPA vs. Justice Minister
The Constitutional Court is set to rule on a critical legal question: Who has the authority to file extradition requests for accused individuals in foreign countries – the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) or the Minister of Justice?
This legal battle stems from the NPA's appeal against a Free State High Court judgment concerning the extradition of Moroadi Cholota, former personal assistant to Ace Magashule, from the United States. Judge Phillip Loubser ruled Cholota's extradition unlawful, leading to her release from prosecution. Magashule faces charges of receiving R10 million in bribes related to a corrupt human settlement scheme.
The High Court's decision was based on a Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) order which stated that only the Justice Minister could make extradition requests to the US, as seen in the case of fugitive Johnathan Schultz. This SCA judgment has potentially opened the door for other accused individuals in NPA-initiated extraditions to avoid prosecution.
NPA Argues for its Constitutional Right
Advocate Wim Trengove, representing the NPA, argued that the SCA judgment infringes on the NPA's constitutional power to handle prosecution matters. He emphasized that a US judge had already approved Cholota's extradition based on sufficient evidence provided by South Africa.
Trengove further argued that Cholota should have challenged the legality of her extradition in the US, where the court order was approved, rather than in South Africa. The Constitutional Court's decision will have significant implications for future extradition cases and the balance of power between the NPA and the Justice Minister.
- The case revolves around the extradition of Moroadi Cholota.
- The NPA argues it has the constitutional right to request extraditions.
- The ConCourt's decision will impact future extradition processes.