For­mer FI­FA vice pres­i­dent Jack Warn­er will learn the out­come of his long-run­ning ex­tra­di­tion pro­ceed­ings be­fore the end of the month.

Dur­ing a hear­ing ear­li­er to­day, Warn­er’s le­gal team, led by Se­nior Coun­sel Fyard Ho­sein, SC, urged Jus­tice Karen Reid to quash the out­stand­ing pro­ceed­ings based on con­ces­sions made by At­tor­ney Gen­er­al John Je­re­mie, SC, last month.

“Let Jack go free,” Ho­sein said.

British at­tor­ney Robert Strang, rep­re­sent­ing the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al, did not op­pose the sug­ges­tion. How­ev­er, he said his client could not ad­mit to any wrong­do­ing by for­mer At­tor­neys Gen­er­al Faris Al-Rawi and Regi­nald Ar­mour, or their team of lo­cal and for­eign lawyers, even with the con­ces­sions made fol­low­ing an ini­tial in­ves­ti­ga­tion launched by Je­re­mie.

Jus­tice Reid re­quest­ed ad­di­tion­al sub­mis­sions from both sides be­fore rul­ing on their joint re­quest re­gard­ing the con­tin­u­a­tion of the ex­tra­di­tion case. She set dead­lines for the fil­ings and ad­journed the mat­ter to Sep­tem­ber 23, when she will de­liv­er her de­ci­sion.

She al­so ruled that al­le­ga­tions of fraud raised by Ho­sein, re­lat­ing to Warn­er’s ex­tra­di­tion and ear­li­er lit­i­ga­tion dis­missed by both the lo­cal courts and the Unit­ed King­dom-based Privy Coun­cil, would be ad­dressed sep­a­rate­ly in a full tri­al on Oc­to­ber 3.

The judge con­firmed that Ho­sein’s claims for sig­nif­i­cant com­pen­sa­tion for Warn­er, based on the con­ces­sions, would al­so be dealt with dur­ing the tri­al.

Warn­er, 81, faces 29 charges from US au­thor­i­ties for fraud, rack­e­teer­ing, and il­le­gal wire trans­fers. The al­leged of­fences took place in the Unit­ed States, Trinidad and To­ba­go, and oth­er coun­tries be­tween 1990 and June 2011, when Warn­er re­signed from FI­FA af­ter be­ing sus­pend­ed.

He was ar­rest­ed on a pro­vi­sion­al war­rant un­der the ex­tra­di­tion re­quest and lat­er re­leased on $2.5 mil­lion bail. Warn­er is one of sev­er­al se­nior FI­FA of­fi­cials in­dict­ed fol­low­ing a 2015 US Fed­er­al Bu­reau of In­ves­ti­ga­tion (FBI) and De­part­ment of Jus­tice probe in­to cor­rup­tion in in­ter­na­tion­al foot­ball.

Sev­er­al of Warn­er’s for­mer col­leagues have since plead­ed guilty and been sen­tenced. His sons, Daryan and Daryll, were al­so in­dict­ed and en­tered guilty pleas.

The ex­tra­di­tion case was paused while Warn­er pur­sued a civ­il claim al­leg­ing in­con­sis­ten­cies be­tween Trinidad and To­ba­go’s ex­tra­di­tion treaty with the Unit­ed States and the Ex­tra­di­tion (Com­mon­wealth and For­eign Ter­ri­to­ries) Act, which was passed in 1985 and amend­ed in 2004.

The Privy Coun­cil up­held lo­cal court rul­ings dis­miss­ing Warn­er’s claim, find­ing that the treaty and leg­is­la­tion were suf­fi­cient­ly aligned de­spite mi­nor dif­fer­ences.

When the mat­ter re­turned be­fore the chief mag­is­trate, Warn­er’s at­tor­neys ques­tioned whether a “be­spoke” ex­tra­di­tion agree­ment ex­ist­ed be­tween the Unit­ed States and Trinidad and To­ba­go, tai­lored specif­i­cal­ly to Warn­er’s case.

They ar­gued that al­though the Of­fice of the At­tor­ney Gen­er­al had claimed such an agree­ment ex­ist­ed dur­ing Warn­er’s ear­li­er le­gal chal­lenge, they lat­er dis­cov­ered the of­fice was re­ly­ing on a gen­er­al arrange­ment used in mul­ti­ple US ex­tra­di­tions over the past two decades.

Last month, Je­re­mie con­ced­ed that the al­leged agree­ment could not be lo­cat­ed and may nev­er have ex­ist­ed.

At the time, Strang apol­o­gised to Warn­er, ad­mit­ting that Warn­er’s civ­il claim had been dis­missed by both the lo­cal courts and the Privy Coun­cil based on the sup­posed ex­is­tence of the agree­ment.

“It is plain that the Privy Coun­cil de­cid­ed the case based on a mis­un­der­stand­ing of facts fos­tered by the AG’s Of­fice,” Strang said.