The Canadian Government has said that it needs additional evidence on the role of Klaus Triendl, against whom the CBI court has issued a warrant in the SNC-Lavalin case, for his extradition.
‘’We have completed the review of the material submitted in support of the extradition request and have concluded that the request is insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Canada’s extradition legislation. In order to satisfy Canada’s legal requirements, we require additional evidence in relation to the identification of Triendl as well as his role in the alleged offence,’’ the International Assistance Group, Ministry of Justice, Government of Canada, said in a letter to the Ministry of External Affairs.
The letter was submitted by the CBI in the court here on Monday. Last time, when the court took up the case, it wanted the CBI to submit the report on completion of warrant conditions against the Lavalin company and Triendl.
Meanwhile, the court postponed to December 24 the order on CPM state secretary Pinarayi Vijayan’s plea requesting beginning of the trial in the SNC-Lavalin case at the earliest by separating the charges against the Lavalin company and Triendl.
The Canadian Government had asked to submit the materials in two separate documents - Record of the Case and General Legal Statement. The Record of the Case should set in general terms what Triendl is alleged to have done and what evidence India intends to rely on to prove its case against him. Canada had also asked to provide evidence which established that Triendl had agreed to one or more Indian officials to set the Pallivasal, Sengulam and Panniyar contract amounts very high. They also demanded more proof to substantiate Treindl’s role in the decision not to seek global tenders for the projects. Canada also wanted additional evidence on the promise of the company to pay `98.3 crore to the Malabar Cancer Centre.
The prosecution in its report said that the information sought by the Canadian authorities were being collected and would be submitted before the court within a week.
“It is humbly submitted that the Honourable Court may take sufficient and reasonable time for submitting the requisite extradition request along with relevant documents and statements of witnesses as evidence to submit the extradition request of Triendl,’’ the report said.
The details that have been sought should have to be submitted to the High Court for perusal and certification and for forwarding to the Ministry of External Affairs for onward transmission to the Canadian authorities.
The prosecution also submitted that there was no merit on the part of Pinarayi Vijayan in stating that the CBI was at fault in executing the warrant.
While posting the case, Judge T S P Moostah also criticised the visual media, stating that ‘’true and correct reporting was needed.’’ He said this while pointing out that some media had reported what the court had not said. ‘’It was the prosecution which had made certain comments. But some of the visual media had reported that the court had said so. The court had not taken a decision if the case had to be split or not,’’ he said.