IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION JOHANNESBURG SOUTH AFRICA

[13] The deponent, on behalf of the Government of Mozambique, asserts that its purpose is to bring Mr Chang and other members of the group that were involved in redirecting the funds, and contends that it is of paramount importance that the perpetrators of the so-called hidden debt scandal, and other acts of corruption and fraud, are held accountable in Mozambique. [...] As long as the purpose sought to be achieved by the exercise of public power is within the authority of the functionary, and as long as the functionary’s decision, viewed objectively, is rational, a Court cannot interfere with the decision simply because it disagrees with it or considers that the power was exercised inappropriately.”6 [30] The argument on behalf of the Minister was that there was. [...] The extradition procedure provides that after the Minister receives a report and copy of the record of the proceedings by the 10 Magistrate who committed the person (in this case, Mr Chang) to prison in terms of section 10(3) of the Extradition Act, the Minister has a discretion on whether to extradite or not. [...] The first is whether the factors ignored are relevant; the second requires the court to consider whether the failure to consider the material concerned (the means) is rationally related to the purpose for which the power was conferred; and the third, which arises only if the answer to the second stage of the enquiry is negative, is “whether ignoring relevant facts is of a kind that colours the ent. [...] [74] Against this backdrop of all the various aspects of invalidity, the Minister simply denies that the warrant is invalid, and he makes no attempt the address the discrepancy between the two warrants, the provisional indictment and the arrest warrant of 19 January 2019.