Meng’s extradition plea has to pass a labyrinth

Many breathed a sigh of relief on the release of Huawei’s Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou on bail in Canada on Wednesday. Nonetheless, it should be made clear that bail and extradition are disparate processes with completely different purposes. Bail depends on whether the detainee poses a risk to society or intends to flee, while extradition depends on the agreement between two jurisdictions over repatriating an accused or convict. Bail is conditional release, not acquittal. There are still challenges awaiting Meng. According to reports, the US has 60 days from the date of arrest to send Canada a formal extradition request. Ottawa would then weigh the request and accept it, otherwise Meng would be acquitted.

Extradition is a strictly cooperative law enforcement process between two jurisdictions. In terms of extradition, the US carries out cooperation with other countries only on the basis of a bilateral treaty or agreement. However, there is no such treaty between Beijing and Washington or Ottawa. Thus, it is currently impossible to extradite people to the US and Canada from China.

The practice follows the principle of non-extradition of nationals. In other words, extradition is not an essential obligation of a country. If the person sought is a national of the requested country, the extradition request will not be approved based on the principle of judicial sovereignty.

Therefore, it would be impossible for the US to extradite Meng, a Chinese citizen, from China. It is based on the extradition agreement with Canada that the US is seeking Meng’s custody, getting her arrested during a layover in the western Canadian city of Vancouver. China as an important party of the trilateral relationship was excluded, which is illegal and unreasonable.

According to Canada’s Extradition Act, extradition requests should be based on the principle of double criminality, which means the act for which the person is sought must constitute a crime in Canada punishable by a sentence of at least six months. US authorities are seeking Meng’s extradition on an allegation of fraud because such offences are stipulated in Canada’s domestic law and are subject to a lower procedural standard.

Canada updated its extradition laws in 1999 based on which the approval rate of requests has increased. Although extradition procedures are still subject to courts, all the evidence is not available to the defending party and the court will not directly judge whether he or she will commit a crime.

This obviously goes against the defense, as the Canadian court only needs to superficially conclude whether the evidence provided by the US meets its requirements.

However, there are exceptional principles for executing extradition, such as nonextradition for political crimes. If Meng’s lawyers argue that the US objective is related to the trade war with China and suppression of Chinese enterprises, with obvious political motives and violation of human rights, she could obtain rightful pleas to refuse extradition.

The definition and explanation of “political crimes” could vary widely among countries. And there are also other factors that could probably prevent extradition, namely the inability of the US to furnish reliable evidence, or Canadian minister of justice or other administrative departments suspending the procedure – for which they are authorized.

Even if extradition is granted at the first request, Meng can appeal repeatedly, including asking Canadian minister of justice to overrule the decision. But this process could take a very long time, even years.

Meng’s case is a typical example of political issues made to look like legal ones. The best way to settle it is through both legal and diplomatic means.

The author is a lecturer at the Department of International Law, China Foreign Affairs University. opinion@globaltimes.com.cn