Moti and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (52776/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 501 (18 August 2017)

Moti and Others v President of the Republic of South Africa and Others (52776/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 501 (18 August 2017)

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to the urgent interdict sought. There was no formal extradition request from Lebanon, and thus the President's discretion under section 3(2) of the Extradition Act was not yet engaged. The applicants' rights to a rational process and to make representations to the President were not at risk of irreparable harm at this stage. The police and Interpol South Africa do not arrest individuals solely on the basis of Red Notices where no extradition treaty exists and no formal request has been made. South African law does not provide for provisional arrest based solely on a Red Notice. The application was premature and did not meet the...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 501
Parties
Applicant: Moti, Zunaid Abbas; Applicant: Moti, Abbas Aboo Baker; Applicant: Kaka, Ashruf; Applicant: Bobat, Salim Ahmed; Respondent: President of the Republic of South Africa; Respondent: Minister of the South African Police Service; Respondent: National Commissioner of the South African Police Service; Respondent: Minister of Home Affairs; Respondent: Head of the National Central Bureau of the International Criminal Police Organisation
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 August 2017
Case Number
52776/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Application for Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Fabricius
Legal Topics
Interdict, Extradition Act, Red Notice, Presidential Discretion, Urgent Relief, Arrest Without Warrant
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Criminal Law Interdict Extradition Act Red Notice Presidential Discretion Urgent Relief +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moti, Zunaid Abbas

Applicant

Moti, Abbas Aboo Baker

Applicant

Kaka, Ashruf

Applicant

Bobat, Salim Ahmed

Applicant

President of the Republic of South Africa

Respondent

Minister of the South African Police Service

Respondent

National Commissioner of the South African Police Service

Respondent

Minister of Home Affairs

Respondent

Head of the National Central Bureau of the International Criminal Police Organisation

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Urgent Application for Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an urgent interdict preventing arrest or extradition based on Interpol Red Notices and Lebanese warrants.
  2. 2 Whether the President may be interdicted from considering an extradition request before applicants exhaust remedies in Lebanon.
  3. 3 Whether the South African Police Service may lawfully arrest the applicants based solely on Red Notices absent a formal extradition request.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the applicants were not entitled to the urgent interdict sought. There was no formal extradition request from Lebanon, and thus the President's discretion under section 3(2) of the Extradition Act was not yet engaged. The applicants' rights to a rational process and to make representations to the President were not at risk of irreparable harm at this stage. The police and Interpol South Africa do not arrest individuals solely on the basis of Red Notices where no extradition treaty exists and no formal request has been made. South African law does not provide for provisional arrest based solely on a Red Notice. The application was premature and did not meet the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two Counsel.