Picture: iStock
A former United States (US) attorney has faced a setback in her battle against extradition as the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) ruled against her.
Joyce Seaberry Britton has been living in Cape Town, South Africa, for over two decades, having fled the US to evade tax-related charges.
However, 22 years later, US authorities continue to pursue her return to stand trial for alleged tax evasion offences.
The extradition treaty between the US and South Africa came into effect in 2001.
Britton, a former attorney for the US state of Illinois, specialised in legal services for adoption cases.
The 74-year-old woman was barred from practicing law after being accused of fraudulently billing the Illinois government over several years, totaling approximately $4.1 million.
Additionally, Britton is accused of failing to pay income tax and neglecting to file tax returns for a period of four years.
She reportedly liquidated $2.5 million in assets, deposited the funds in a Swiss bank account, and subsequently fled to South Africa in 2002.
In 2005, US authorities issued a warrant for her arrest following two indictments for theft and tax evasion.
It was not until 2007 that Britton became aware that the US was pursuing her extradition.
ALSO READ: South Africa’s fight to extradite Shepherd and Mary Bushiri ongoing
Britton appeared in the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court for an extradition inquiry in February 2009.
Later that year, she successfully contested the legality of those proceedings in the Western Cape High Court.
However, in 2011, the US government submitted a second extradition request.
It was only years later, in June 2017, that the Minister of Justice issued a notice under Section 5(1) of the Extradition Act, confirming that a request for Britton’s extradition had been received from the US.
Following this, an arrest warrant was issued by the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court in July, bringing Britton back before the Cape Town Magistrate’s Court.
She was formally arrested and subsequently granted bail of R50 000 in October 2017.
In 2018, Britton filed a case in the Western Cape High Court to have the Minister of Justice’s extradition notice, her arrest warrant, and her arrest set aside.
She argued that the delays in her extradition were unreasonable, making the proceedings unconstitutional.
Britton also pointed out that Section 5(1)(a) of the Extradition Act was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) in a 2020 ruling known as the ‘Smit’ judgment.
READ MORE: AKA-Tibz murder: Ndimande brothers to be extradited
The ConCourt found this section inconsistent with the Constitution because it did not allow magistrates to exercise judicial discretion when issuing arrest warrants based on the Minister of Justice’s notification.
The apex court ruled that the invalidity of this section would apply only from the date of the order on 18 December 2020.
Britton lost her case in the high court in February 2023, but she was granted permission to appeal to the SCA.
Before the SCA, her legal team contended that the ConCourt’s 2020 judgment should apply retrospectively to her ongoing extradition proceedings.
They also argued that the magistrate’s decision to issue her arrest warrant simply “rubber-stamped” the minister’s notice for her extradition.
ALSO READ: Magashule’s former PA can be extradited to SA for corruption, US court rules
But SCA Judge Caroline Nicholls, with four other judges concurring, found that the claim alleging the magistrate did not adequately review the arrest warrant or consider its merits was “not borne out by the evidence”, leading to the conclusion that “this submission must fail”.
“The magistrate also said that when issuing a warrant, he considered the offences for which the person is sought in the requesting state and then determined whether those would be offences in South Africa,” the judgment delivered on 31 October 2024 reads.
Regarding the argument about retrospectivity, Nicholls stated that the ConCourt’s ruling was “explicit”, even though it did not provide reasons for its decision to apply prospectively.
“It is not open to this court to speculate as to some implicit reservation of retrospectivity that the Constitutional Court in Smit left unexpressed.
“The appellant may well be deserving of the benefit of the declaration of invalidity given by the Constitutional Court, but since that court has rendered such invalidity prospective, the warrant of arrest that was issued in terms of Section 5(1)(a) in respect of Ms Britton, is to be treated as valid. Any different order is beyond the remit of revision by this court,” she explained.
As a result, the judge dismissed Britton’s appeal, allowing for a second inquiry into her extradition proceedings to begin in the magistrate’s court.
NOW READ: Alleged Eskom fraud fugitive Michael Lomas brought back to SA
Download our app and read this and other great stories on the move. Available for Android and iOS.
