Letters & Opinion

Dr. Juffali’s Divorce PART TWO

By Stephen Lester Prescott

ON the last occasion that I wrote on the above subject, I promised a second article to focus on the judgement of the trial judge in this matter. But let us retrace our steps a little.

It was not long after Ms Estrada’s matter was filed, that the matter reached the Saint Lucian government’s doorstep and Prime Minister Anthony was called upon to revoke Dr.Juffali’s immunity. In response, the Government explained that in so far as it was concerned the matter before the courts was a civil case between two individuals which did not involve the Government and People of Saint Lucia. To this end, said the Government, it would uphold the principle of diplomatic immunity which is fundamental to the conduct of diplomatic practice.

In a bizarre twist, the Daily Mail reported that the FCO had given the Government of Saint Lucia until January 8th, 2016, to lift Dr.Juffali’s immunity. From the tone of the Press Release issued by the Government of Saint Lucia, it was clear that the Government felt that diplomatic procedure and practice had been thrown out of the window by the FCO. It is claimed that the media was aware of the contents of the FCO letter before the Government even knew of the letter’s existence. In another break with tradition and protocol, the FCO never interacted with Saint Lucia’s High Commission prior to issuing the letter. The response of the Government of Saint Lucia after discussions with the FCO was that it would uphold the principle of diplomatic immunity and allow the Courts to decide whether or not diplomatic immunity was applicable in the civil case.

The case was heard at the London Family Court between January 18-22, 2016. A judgement was delivered on February 15th. It is by any account a bizarre ruling which appears woefully inconsistent with the pleadings in the case itself. More so, its logic and reasoning, with all due respect to the Judge, is pedestrian and “tabloidesque.”

The judgement commences with the Judge noting that Miss Estrada had a change of lawyers in December 2015 and a matter previously dropped was not being re-introduced. It is known that her present law firm was her fourth for the year and had not even been on the case for more than three weeks!!!

The Judge first ruled that Dr.Juffali is not entitled to diplomatic immunity. His conclusion is based on what he says is the balance between human rights and diplomatic immunity. That immunity is given to a post and not an individual. He reasoned that Dr.Juffali never ‘took up’ his post as he never attended any meetings or performed any duties. He surmised that Dr Juffali had no knowledge of maritime affairs and that he could have been appointed a trade and investment envoy instead of given ambassadorial duties. In what can only be described as a bizarre piece of syllogistical reasoning, the judge reasoned thus: That because of his health Dr Juffali was not able to perform any ambassadorial duties; that because of the sequence of events, Dr.Juffali sought and obtained an appointment to avoid his ex-wife from pursuing her claim. Therefore, the appointment is a sham and cannot be relied upon.

It is established law that a diplomat takes up his appointment the minute he is accepted by the receiving state. That judgement has thrown out decades of jurisprudence.

Moreover, the judge arrived at his conclusions despite having received, upon his request, an FCO Certificate stating conclusively that Dr.Juffali is an accredited diplomat and is entitled to diplomatic immunity and privileges by virtue of his appointment. That evidence itself answers the question to the Judge. The FCO is the competent to decide who has diplomatic immunity and privileges. Once a Certificate is issued, it is conclusive proof. A Court cannot determine if that person has diplomatic immunity or not. A Judge may wish to determine if the immunity applies for a particular case but NOT if the individual has it.

As to the effect of immunity on human rights, the Judge himself accepts that immunity is a proportionate exception to individual human rights. This is a fundamental principle of diplomatic immunity. It is why in numerous cases diplomats have committed criminal offences and have not been charged or prosecuted. The action is for the sending state to recall the diplomat. I add here, that no one is here endorsing criminal behaviour by diplomats under cover of immunity.

The point which most exposes the lack of understanding of the judge of diplomatic practice is the statement that Dr.Juffali should have been made a trade and investment envoy and not given ambassadorial duties. The simple fact is that an envoy can have diplomatic immunity once accepted by the FCO and the issue would not have gone away. You can be an envoy at the level of Ambassador, Consul, First Secretary or Attaché. What matters is whether the person has been granted diplomatic immunity. As I said earlier, the nomenclature is immaterial.

Further, the Judge’s reasoning relies on statements carried in tabloid and online news sources and not on evidence from official sources. How does he reach the conclusion that Dr.Juffali has never performed ANY duties? Does he consider that for someone to be the IMO Permanent Representative it is a requirement that that person have knowledge of maritime affairs? That every diplomat possesses specialized knowledge in international relations or diplomacy or whatever? How does he reach the conclusion that Dr.Juffali knew that his ex-wife would not accept his generous settlement, which she has been receiving, and would someday come after him for more? How does he reach the conclusion that since Dr.Juffali is being treated for cancer he will never again be able to perform any duties? These are astounding findings, to say the least.

Secondly, the Judge rules that Dr.Juffali is a ‘permanent resident’. Now this is very important and brings the Government of Saint Lucia’s position into full focus. If the Court decides that Dr.Juffali is a permanent resident then having immunity becomes irrelevant!!!!! It means that even if he has immunity it is limited to the performance of his functions because by being a permanent resident he does not enjoy full privileges and the matter can be heard. The Government of Saint Lucia was very right. Let the Court decide if immunity can apply in this case!!! The Government of Saint Lucia was right to uphold the principle of diplomatic immunity as to set a precedent that once a third party requests that it be lifted for a civil matter this is done, otherwise diplomatic practice would be severely compromised.

The Judge reaches this “permanent resident” conclusion by weighing heavily on one fact – that Dr.Juffali’s two ex-wives and present wife live in the UK and his last child was born in the UK. This is rather strange. In the opinion of most people there is a single rule of thumb used for the UK – if the authorities deem that you have sufficient business interests in the UK, that you spend enough days each year in the UK, and that you own property in the UK so that you are required to pay taxes then you are a permanent resident. Quite simply, the Judge should have ascertained whether the Tax authorities had ever assessed Dr.Juffali and determined that he is not required to pay taxes because he is not a permanent resident. Further, the Judge could have established that Dr.Juffali is an international businessman whose family home is in Jeddah and that he travels extensively. In fact he obtained a visa to remain in the UK without limitation only AFTER his diplomatic appointment. I must reemphasize that the UK tax authorities have always determined that Dr.Juffali’s status in the UK is not one which makes him the subject of tax collection.

On the third point, the Judge ruled that Miss Estrada’s claim on the properties she identified was excluded from general immunity failed.

The implications of the ruling on the immunity point are far-reaching and raise some questions for the UK Government and the IMO.

Firstly, which is the competent authority to determine if a diplomat has immunity? What is the value of the Certificate issued by the Secretary of State if a court can simply discard it? Can diplomatic immunity be overridden by a Judge once he deems that person to be incompetent, inefficient, or lacking the requisite qualification or skills? Since the Judge has determined that the appointment was cover then is Dr.Juffali the Government of Saint Lucia’s Permanent Representative to the IMO? Does the IMO still recognize him? Will the IMO recognize any further appointments as Permanent Representatives if that person does not have maritime knowledge and experience? Is there a minimum level of activity required for a Permanent Representative to undertake to be considered active and, therefore, still holding the post?

If you ask me my view of it all, it is nothing more than the British establishment striking back! It is not about Juffali or Saint Lucia really. Saint Lucia is low-hanging fruit which the British establishment thought can be bullied. Think about it, Ms Estrada is an American, Dr.Juffali is a Saudi, Miss Estrada owns property in the US, Juffali owns property in the US and Saudi Arabia, why did she not file a case in the US or in Saudi Arabia? London has become a centre for divorce tourism. It is known that the most generous settlements are granted in London. More so, maybe, just maybe, it is becoming too offensive for rich Russians and Arabs to appear to be flaunting their wealth, buying most of London’s most cherished properties. Now to seemingly abuse immunities and privileges is becoming too much. Just check how many Arab diplomats have cases in the Courts in the past year.

Yes indeed, the Empire strikes Back!

At the time of writing, the appeal was underway. I wait the outcome with deep interest!!!

3 Comments

  1. Any one reading the above article would start to believe that the writer knows what they are talking about. He goes around the houses and makes statements that are unchallenged. I did find it interesting that for some one who sounds well informed he gets the basics wrong almost every time. The paper that first broke the story in England is the Daily Telegraph. A broad sheet, yet the writer describes it as a tabloid. If a man does not know the difference between a broad sheet and a tabloid, you may well start to think, what else does he not know.
    The writer seems to have done no investigation of his own. Instead he relies on what is already in the public domain. He states that the ex wife lives in England. Wrong she does no. A simple investigation would reveal where she lives. I found 12 different statements in the article that are mind blowing questionable. How does he know that the judge relied on statements from the press to come to his decision ? For some one who is so well informed, there is no mention of Tafawa Williams. The man who is currently attending IMO meetings on behalf of Jaffali. Who is he what is his connection to Juffali ? What is his connection to the former HIgh Commission to London. Please a news paper is supposed to give a balance view of any event it carries and I do hope this response is published.

  2. I decided not to continue reading the drivel that the Voice decided to allow in publication. The government has swindled and cheated the people of St. Lucia. Someone has used and abused their position in a diplomatic post. In a properly functioning society this would have merited an enquiry and an appropriate judgement. In this case the individual is running for elections and has hope for higher office. the British Hgh Court sounded the alarm. It has been ignored. But you bet you have not heard the last of this case. And you shall remember those wise words no matter how long it takes. The writer should educate himself on those matters before writing foolishness in a desperate bid to muddy the thinking of the public on such a serious issue with international ramifications beyond KDA and his red rogue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send this to a friend