Extradition Treaties between the Republic of South Africa and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

This premium content has been made freely available

Justice and Correctional Services

10 November 2009
Chairperson: Mr N Ramatlodi (ANC)
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

The Department of Justice explained the nature of the extradition treaties between South Africa and Hong Kong. This specific agreement was different to others concluded by the government as it provided for the listing of crimes as proposed by the government of Hong Kong. The other distinction was that South Africa would not provide assistance in cases where the death penalty was applicable.

Meeting report

Presentation by the Department on the Agreements between the Republic of South Africa and Hong Kong
Mr H Van Heerden, Principal State Law Advisor, Department of Justice, briefed the Committee on the nature of the extradition treaties between South Africa and Hong Kong. Given the fact that criminality knew no borders, it was desirable and necessary to conclude such treaties, with a view of assisting both countries in extraditing fugitives of law. The agreements were originally formulated in 1998/99. The next step that would be taken after the treaty had been drawn up would be to see if it was in line with South African law as well as existing international law. It was noted that although Hong Kong was a region that fell under the People’s Republic of China, it could still enter into treaties.

This specific agreement was different to others concluded by the government as it provided for the listing of crimes as proposed by the government of Hong Kong. The other distinction was that South Africa would not provide assistance in cases where the death penalty was applicable.

Discussion
The Chairperson requested clarity on important clauses

Mr Van Heerden responded that the only difference was the huge list of offenses that had been drawn up as well as the exclusion of assistance in cases where the death penalty was applicable. The Constitutional Court had held that the Department had followed the correct procedures (in the finalisation of the agreement) -including the signing of the treaty by the Minister and not the President.

The meeting was adjourned.


Share this page: