On May 8, Meng Wanzhou, the CFO of Chinese technology giant Huawei, appeared in British Columbia's Supreme Court, seeking to fight against extradition to the U.S. Meng was arrested in Vancouver last December at the request of the United States. Washington charged Meng with wire fraud, bank fraud and conspiracy over Huawei's attempts to circumvent U.S. sanctions against Iran.

Meanwhile, Huawei tweeted an official media statement regarding Meng's extradition case in Canada. In the statement, Huawei made three points:

1. The criminal case against Meng is based on allegations that are simply not true.

2. The actions violate the core of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

3. The extradition request violates a core principle of Canadian extradition law – double criminality.

Meng's extradition is illegal

Huawei's three-point statement is well-founded and directly points out the injustice of the Canadian government in this incident. The third point is the most important. The extradition request in response to U.S. demands is a violation of Canadian legal principles.

Canada has always been known for its strict judiciary. However, extraditing Meng would be inconsistent with its laws. The core principle of the Canadian Extradition Act is double criminality, which means that only when the accused's conduct violates the law of the extradition state and Canadian law, can Canada initiate the extradition process in accordance with its treaty with the extradition state.

The U.S.' extradition request stems from its accusation that Huawei violated U.S. sanctions against Iran. However, Canada has not imposed sanctions on Iran. In other words, even if Huawei violated the sanctions, the company's actions are not considered criminal actions in Canada. Therefore, the extradition of Meng would be a violation of the double criminality principle.

If Canada wants to extradite Meng, it must prove that she operated using “deception, dishonesty or other improper means.” However, the first point in Huawei's statement clearly states that “Meng's behavior is open and transparent, and the bank personnel are fully aware of the actual situation of the relevant issues.” No evidence has been produced to substantiate claims of Meng's wrongdoing.

Therefore, extraditing Meng would violate Canada's local laws and extradition laws. And it is neither reasonable nor legal for Canada to extradite her to the U.S. at their request.

Violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

In addition to violating Canadian extradition laws, Meng's treatment violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF).

The CCRF is a bill of rights guaranteed by the Constitution of Canada. It plays an important part in the Constitution Act of 1982. Notably, the CCRF not only prevents certain human rights of Canadian citizens from being violated, but it also guarantees the civil rights of everyone in Canada regardless of their nationality.

The CCRF protects the rights of people in Canada when dealing with the justice system and law enforcement. According to Section 8 and 9, people are free from unreasonable search and seizure (Section 8) and arbitrary detention or imprisonment (Section 9).

Secondly, Huawei accused the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) of carrying out an illegal detention. Meng's luggage was checked by RCMP, during which time she was made by the FBI to relinquish her mobile phone and other electronic devices, and made to disclose relevant passwords. RCMP's actions violate section 8 and 9 of the charter, infringing upon Meng's rights of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and arbitrary detention.

Although extraditing Meng cannot be justified from a legal perspective, experts believe her arrest ties directly to the ongoing Sino-U.S. trade war. As one of the U.S.' most important allies, Canada has rejected Huawei's participation in the construction of 5G networks in Canada. For these reasons, the Canadian court is likely to make a judgment against Meng.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com)