The deposed Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro is again scheduled to appear in a Manhattan federal court on Thursday for his “narco-terrorism” case after his capture by US military forces earlier this year.
US special forces captured Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, on 3 January in a controversial pre-dawn raid during an assault on Caracas that reportedly killed 100 people.
Charging papers allege that Maduro spearheaded a “corrupt, illegitimate government that, for decades, has leveraged government power to protect and promote illegal activity, including drug trafficking”.
Their capture followed months of US pressure against Maduro, such as assaults on purported “narco boats”. These boat strikes resulted in more than 100 deaths and some legal experts have challenged not only the legality of these attacks, but whether they are equivalent to war crimes.
Maduro and Flores both pleaded not guilty during their 5 January arraignment.
Maduro’s court appearance comes several weeks after he pushed for dismissal of his case by alleging that US officials were violating the fallen head of state’s “constitutional right to counsel of his choice”. They claimed that authorities were unlawfully prohibiting the Venezuelan government from paying for his defense.
The US treasury department’s office of foreign assets control (Ofac) on 9 January granted Maduro a waiver to accept money from Venezuela’s government – which is under sanction – for his legal fees. Just three hours later, however, Ofac “reversed course”, Maduro’s lawyers said.
“As a result, Mr Maduro, who lacks his own funds to retain counsel, is being deprived of his constitutional right to counsel of his choice,” Maduro’s lawyers said in court papers filed on 26 February.
“If OFAC’s interference with Mr Maduro’s ability to fund his defense persists, undersigned counsel cannot remain in the case, nor can Mr Maduro be represented by any other retained counsel,” his lawyers wrote. “Not only would the Court need to appoint counsel and foist the cost of Mr Maduro’s defense on the United States taxpayers, despite the willingness and obligation of the government of Venezuela to pay Mr Maduro’s defense costs, but also any verdict against Mr Maduro would be constitutionally suspect.”
Ofac contends that it never meant to greenlight Venezuela’s funding of Maduro’s defense, saying in 13 March court papers: “The inclusion in these licenses of an authorization to use funds paid by the Government of Venezuela was an administrative error.”
“Once Ofac’s Licensing Division became aware of the error in the Maduro License, Ofacamended this license to align with Ofac’s licensing policy and with US foreign policy objectives,” an agency official said.
Manhattan federal prosecutors are fighting Maduro’s push for dismissal.
They claimed in a 13 March filing that while Ofac would typically allow a defendant such as Maduro to use his own money for legal fees, it would be “highly unusual” for a sanctioned government to receive such a waiver.
