Former FIFA VP Warner wants information regarding payment to lawyers

A High court judge has granted the former vice president of the International Football Federation (FIFA), Austin Jack Warner, permission to challenge a senior public servant for failing to disclose all invoices, fee requisitions and payments to “all barristers, solicitors and attorneys” in the ongoing extradition proceedings against him.

Justice Karen Reid said it was the court’s view that the issues raised by Warner could only be resolved at a trial and that she made her decision after reading what Warner and the Permanent Secretary in the Office of the Attorney General had submitted to the court to date.

Warner was allowed to file his claim for judicial review by April 4 after contending that he should have received unredacted documents for all the attorneys for the State in his extradition matter.

“These are monies spent from the public purse so the taxpayers have a right to know,” Warner had said in an affidavit filed on March 15.

Warner, a former senior government minister, has been challenging the procedure of the extradition proceedings, following the United States request, on July 24, 2015, for him to face charges of wire fraud, racketeering and money laundering. He has also been challenging the authority to proceed (ATP) granted by the Attorney General in September that year which gave the court the authority to begin the proceedings.

Warner, who also served as Concacaf president, was indicted in May 2015. US prosecutors allege that from as far back as 1990, he leveraged his influence and exploited his official positions for personal gain.

Among other things, the 82 -year-old former football administrator is accused of receiving five million US dollars in bribes sent through more than two dozen separate wire transfers, from 10 different shell companies, to a Caribbean Football Union account he controlled at Republic Bank in Trinidad and Tobago – to vote for Russia to host the 2018 World Cup.

In his latest court battle, Warner has accused the senior public servant here of “obfuscation,” since he received some information, but then received redacted information padded with triplicates and duplicates.

In a freedom-of-information request in July 2023, Warner wanted to know how much money was spent to hire attorneys to extradite him to the US. The information relates to all the court matters from 2015-2023, including the committal proceedings in the magistrates’ court and the application to join the US in previous proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal, the Privy Council proceedings, as well as his referral application to the High Court.

In October 2023, Warner was told there were no “sufficiently strong public interests” to release the information and the Permanent Secretary also said these interests would be best served by refusing access to the invoices and fee requisitions for the law firms at each stage of the legal proceedings and preserving attorney/client privilege.

Warner then applied for judicial review in December.

One of the responses he received to the FOI request, from the Office of the Attorney general, showed that six attorneys and the sum of TT$6.5 million (One TT dollar=US$0.16 cents) had been paid to them from 2015-2023.

“I do not accept this as a response…I see this as another fabrication and an attempt to mislead and fool us,” he said, asking that the ministry provide copies of invoices, fee requisitions and any other document it has received from the 18 barristers, attorneys and solicitors.

On March 12, the lead counsel for the State, Russell Martineau, SC, said the information Warner wanted did not exist in the way it was requested and also that the request raised constitutionality issues for attorneys.

“We have nothing to hide, we will give you information, but we are not going to infringe anyone’s rights,” he said.

However, Warner contends that the privacy and constitutional considerations “held no weight or water.

“I reiterate my concerns regarding the apparent obfuscation and reluctance by the intended respondent to fully disclose the requested information while simultaneously claiming to be fully transparent and open.”

The matter has been adjourned to June 26.

SOURCE: CMC