A
İS\PERMUPB£3796/CXK/007/MEG/JPB
FOR:
CIDADO
F.03
CONSEIL D'ETAT
LITIGATION SECTION
NEW PLEADINGS IN RESPONSE
DRAFT
THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND THE GOVERNOR OF THE CROWN COLONY OF HONG-KONG
In support of the recourse n° 142.578
The observations presented by the Minister of Justice and Mr. Saniman necessitate the following observations from the plaintiffs:
ON THE FACTS
One easily understands that Mr. Saniman should present a very mild version of the facts which were the reasons for the request for extradition with respect to his role in the matter at stake. The obvious misrepresentations in his pleadings, when put in parallel with the facts as stated by the witnesses and evidenced in the [Hong Kong] suit, both mentioned in the [French] procedure, should suffice to do them justice. Mr. Saniman knows it very well, be it only because of the report of the Investigation Committee to which he makes reference (page 3, paragraph before the last paragraph) which, although it was not published in Hong Kong, only in order to give the accused the benefit of a fair trial within the meaning of the applicable rules of procedure, was nevertheless the subject of a public debate in Parliament in Malaysia.
But, as both the Minister of Justice and Mr. Saniman himself conclude, the judge in extradition matters must decide on the facts as they are presented in the request for extradition.
One will only observe that Mr. Saniman cannot both say that he had only a junior position and important powers within BMFL according to whether one discusses the characterisation of the offence (pages 28 et seq.) or whether he wants to present himself in a favourable manner.
But one must, however, rectify what is said with respect to the risks incurred by Mr. Saniman in the event that he should be extradited to Hong Kong: it is totally inaccurate to say that several "persons involved in the investigation" were murdered since the start of the case (see pages 3 et seq.). On the one hand, the persons whose names are quoted are not, contrary to Mr. Saniman, accused to have been involved in the fraud but on the contrary, they are of those who were likely to disclose it. Mr. Saniman, should he be in this situation, would, should one follow his rationale, be indeed under threat: but, then, in the entire world!
On the other hand and above all, his statements are inaccurate and misleading. Indeed, Mr. Jalil Ibrahim, entrusted by BBMB with an audit of BMFL, was murdered in Hong Kong. But such murder took place before the investigation was started and it is precisely on the occasion of the investigation of this murder