## Facts

- German authorities sought the extradition of Dr. Horst Schumann, a German national residing in Ghana, to stand trial for murder arising from Nazi-era killings and sterilization experiments.
- Acting under Ghana’s Extradition Act, 1960, the government initiated extradition proceedings and Schumann was arrested on a magistrate’s warrant.
- After a hearing, a district magistrate committed Schumann to prison to await government orders for surrender to Germany.
- Schumann petitioned for habeas corpus in the High Court, claiming the committal was unlawful; the High Court denied relief.
- On appeal, Schumann argued (1) the charged conduct was an “offence of a political character” and thus non-extraditable, and (2) the magistrate proceedings were unfair because he was not properly allowed to present political-offence evidence and a State Attorney appeared in support of the requesting state’s case.
- Schumann also relied on related themes that his actions were carried out under superior orders and as part of state policy.

## Issues

1. Whether the murder charge based on Nazi-era mass killings and sterilization experiments qualified as an “offence of a political character” barring extradition under Ghana’s Extradition Act, 1960.
2. Whether the extradition committal was invalid due to unfairness or breach of natural justice, including limits on evidence concerning political character and the appearance of a State Attorney in support of the requesting state.
3. Whether claims of superior orders or state authorization affected the political-offence analysis or otherwise barred extradition at the committal stage.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the refusal of habeas corpus.
- The court held the charged conduct was not an offence “of a political character” within the political-offence exception to extradition.
- The court found no procedural unfairness or natural-justice breach sufficient to invalidate the committal.
- The court rejected the view that superior orders or state policy could convert the alleged crimes into political offences or otherwise defeat extradition committal.

## Legal Principles

- A political offence for extradition purposes generally requires (i) a political disturbance or struggle for governmental power and (ii) a sufficient connection between the offence and that struggle (including acts done in furtherance of it or to avoid political persecution for political conduct).
- Large-scale violence against civilians carried out as state-sponsored persecution and extermination is not treated as a protected political offence for extradition purposes.
- At the committal/habeas stage, alleged defenses based on superior orders or state authorization do not, without more, bar extradition by recharacterizing murder as political conduct.
- Participation by a public prosecutor or State Attorney in extradition proceedings, without showing resulting loss of tribunal impartiality or statutory violation, does not itself render the proceedings unfair or oppressive.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Schumann’s committal pending extradition, concluding that Nazi-era mass killings and sterilization experiments were not “political offences” under Ghana’s extradition law and that the challenged features of the magistrate proceedings did not justify habeas corpus relief.


State v. Schumann, 39 I.L.R. 433 (Ghana Ct. App. 1966)