A former United States (US) attorney has faced a setback in his fight against extradition as the Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) ruled against him.

Joyce Seaberry Britton has lived in Cape Town, South Africa, for more than two decades, having fled the United States to escape tax-related charges.

But 22 years later, U.S. authorities continue to pursue his return to stand trial for alleged tax evasion crimes.

The extradition treaty between the United States and South Africa came into force in 2001.

Britton, a former attorney for the U.S. state of Illinois, specializes 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 totaling $4.1 million over several years.

Britton is also accused of failing to pay income taxes for four years and neglecting to file tax returns.

He reportedly liquidated $2.5 million in assets, deposited the money in a Swiss bank account, and then fled to South Africa in 2002.

In 2005, US authorities issued an arrest warrant for him following two indictments for theft and tax evasion.

Only in 2007 did Britton become aware that the United States was trying to extradite him.

ALSO READ: South Africa’s fight to extradite Shepherd and Mary Bushiri continues

Britton appeared in the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court for an extradition hearing in February 2009.

Later that year, he successfully challenged the legality of these proceedings in the Western Cape High Court.

However, in 2011, the US government made a second extradition request.

Only years later, in June 2017, the Secretary of State for Justice issued a notification confirming the receipt of Britton’s extradition request from the United States under Article 5(1) of the Extradition Act.

An arrest warrant was subsequently issued by the Pretoria Magistrates Court in July and Britton was brought back before the Cape Town Magistrates Court.

He was formally arrested and subsequently released on bail of Rs 50,000 in October 2017.

In 2018, Britton brought proceedings in the Western Cape High Court to quash the Minister of Justice’s extradition notice, arrest warrant and detention.

He argued that the delays in his extradition were unreasonable and therefore the trial was unconstitutional.

Britton also pointed out that Article 5(1)(a) of the Extradition Act was declared unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court (ConCourt) in its 2020 decision, known as the ‘Smit’ decision.

READ MORE: AKA-Tibz murder: Ndimande brothers will be extradited

The ConCourt found that this section was unconstitutional because it did not allow judges to exercise judicial discretion in issuing arrest warrants based on notification from the Minister of Justice.

The high court ruled that the invalidity of this section will be valid only from the date of the decision on December 18, 2020.

Britton loses high court case In February 2023 he was given permission to appeal to the SCA.

Before the SCA, the legal team argued that the ConCourt’s 2020 decision should be applied retroactively to ongoing extradition proceedings.

They also argued that the magistrate’s decision to issue an arrest warrant against him simply “shelled out” the minister’s notice of his extradition.

ALSO READ: Magashule’s former PA could be extradited to SA over corruption, US court says

But SCA Judge Caroline Nicholls, along with four other judges, found that the submission, which claimed the magistrate had not adequately examined the warrant or considered its merits “unsupported by the evidence”, concluded that “this submission must fail”. ”.

“The judge also said that when issuing an arrest warrant, he takes into account the crimes for which the person is wanted in the requesting state and then determines whether these would be crimes in South Africa,” the ruling said. 31 October 2024 reader.

SCA rejected the appeal

Regarding the claim of retroactivity, Nicholls stated that the ConCourt’s decision was “clear”, although it did not provide reasons for its decision to apply prospectively.

“It is not clear that this court should speculate on some implicit reservations about retroactivity that the Constitutional Court in Smit left unexpressed.

“The appellant may well be entitled to the benefit of a declaration of invalidity granted by the Constitutional Court, but as the court has made such invalidity possible, the warrant issued under Article 5(1)(a) will, with due respect to Ms Britton, stand. “Any different order is beyond the jurisdiction of this court to review,” he explained.

As a result, the judge rejected Britton’s appeal and allowed a second investigation into the extradition case to begin in the magistrates’ court.

NOW READ: Eskom scam evader Michael Lomas allegedly brought back to SA