Extradition is a critical threat to whistleblowers
(from left) Julian Assange, Rui Pinto, and Jonathan Taylor
Cross-border legal threats and formal extradition proceedings are a form of reprisal against whistleblowers that is on the increase. HSBC whistleblower Herve Falciani and Maria Efimova, who was a source to murdered investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, are just two of the prominent whistleblowers who successfully challenged politically motivated extraditions within the EU in recent years.
The risk of abuse of the Interpol Red Notice system by governments seeking to repress journalists, whistleblowers and human rights defenders has been widely recognised in recent years. A recent report from the European Parliament concluded that, despite attempts to improve the system in refugee cases, states were not making an independent assessment of whether a Red Notice - which is a request to seek the location and arrest of a person wanted for extradition – is appropriate. The state-to-state nature of these procedures means that protections against unfair extradition are unpredictable and hard to enforce.
This is an issue that has been on our radar for some time. One of our Principles for Whistleblower Protection is that extradition should not be allowed in cases where that extradition has been sought in connection with a public interest disclosure. Judges should consider both the degree to which a request is related to an act of whistleblowing and whether the public interest is better served by preventing extradition. These protections should be provided for in law.
September 2020 is a critical month for the relationship between extradition regimes and freedom of expression, as it plays out in three separate cases
Today the trial of Football Leaks whistleblower Rui Pinto opens in Lisbon. Pinto, who is facing charges for breach of correspondence, data theft and attempted blackmail was awarded the Daphne Caruana Galizia prize last year. It is beyond question that he has transformed the debate about tax evasion and other forms of corruption in the world of sport.
The source documents he revealed have provided the foundation for a formidable body of reporting by Der Spiegel and other members of the European Investigative Collaborations network. The Signals Network, which has been supporting Pinto since his arrest, estimates that 65 million Euro has been recovered thanks to his revelations
Rui Pinto will be facing trial in Portugal, but when he was arrested in January 2019, it was in Budapest. Extradition proceedings that year failed to take full account of the freedom of expression implications of his case. After Pinto's extradition, Portuguese police increased the number of charges against him from six to 147, which prompted his lawyers to make a protest to the European Commission about abuse of EU extradition procedures. Pinto will now face 90 charges over the course of his trial, which is expected to last three months or more. If convicted on all counts, he risks imprisonment of 25 years
These cross-border threats are ongoing. Just last month, British whistleblower Jonathan Taylor was arrested in Croatia on behalf of Monaco while on a family holiday. Taylor had previously exposed a 275 billon dollar network of bribes paid by the Monaco-based oil company SMB Offshore. According to press reports, the international investigations that resulted from Taylor’s public interest revelations have led to the imposition of fines of over 800 million dollars. The Red Notice that has led to Jonathan Taylor’s detention in Croatia results from a complaint by the company he blew the whistle on. Blueprint is one of a group of organizations who have called for the immediate withdrawal of the arrest warrant.
The UK government has come under pressure to intervene in Taylor's case. At the same time, an almost uniquely high-profile extradition case is due to reopen at London's Central Criminal Court. WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange faces a potential 175 year sentence if extradited to the United States on charges related to the publication of US government documents in 2010 and 2011. The case marks the first time the US Department of Justice has sought to criminalize publication under the 1917 Espionage Act. If upheld, that would signal a significant deterioration in press freedoms in the US and further afield.
Blueprint for Free Speech will be formally monitoring the Assange hearings, which resume on Monday 7 September after an initial four days of hearings in February. Like many civil society organisations, we have concerns about the extent to which public access to these hearings has been limited. Many of the access issues with this case pre-date the coronavirus pandemic.
These accessibility issues are particularly troubling given the late changes the United States authorities have made to their case. A new extradition request was submitted only last month, more than half a year after the main extradition hearing opened
Assange’s defence team are set to argue that his extradition should not go ahead on a number of statutory and fundamental rights grounds. The case has already brought into question whether long-standing safeguards against politically motivated extraditions are fit for purpose. What happens in London over the next few weeks will be critical for both for the freedom of the press and the welfare of the whistleblowers a free press depends on.