Updating on my earlier piece regarding Khalid Rashid, the Mail & Guardian reports that the plane used in the rendition, with flight number A6-PHY, was “a Gulfstream II jet owned by AVE”, and not Phoenix Aviation as had originally reported, “a company legally domiciled in the central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan, whose main base of operations is Sharjah in the United Arab Emirates.”

SAPA (via News24) reported a statement from the South African government Thursday, which claimed:

We can confirm that the Pakistani government has acknowledged, in writing, that Rashid arrived in Pakistan on 6 November 2005,” read a justice, crime prevention and security cluster statement.

Government can confirm he was handed over to Pakistani officials who travelled to South Africa to receive him.

They also claimed that, when asked if he wished to challenge his deportation, Rashid “indicated his willingness to be deported”. However, the Mail & Guardian noted that Rashid’s family’s lawyer, Zehir Omar, continued to ask why there was “internal home affairs correspondence proposing that the Pakistani embassy be approached to produce a backdated letter confirming Rashidâ??s arrival in Pakistan in good health.” Regarding the letter, the SABC reports that “E-mail communication in a secret file contained in court documents in Pretoria High Court, has opened another can of worms”:

The e-mail was sent on February 16 between senior home affairs officials. A senior official says in the e-mail she had been advised by the department’s legal counsel, that a letter confirming Rashid’s arrival should be sought from the Pakistani interior ministry.

The official stresses the importance of the letter being dated after the court order, compelling the department to provide details. She also insists the letter must not be classified, as it would be entered into court records. The result of this appears to be the contested letter signed by Lieutenant Colonel Muhammad Imran Yaqub, a senior Pakistani interior ministry official, dated January 31 2006.

Joel Netshitenzhe, speaking on behalf of the South African government, said that he didn’t “know anything about a secret file regarding Khalid Rashid’s deportation” and “repeated the government’s view that Zehir Omar, Rashid’s lawyer, has been acting unethically.”

In their statement clarifying and defending their decision, the South African government stated that Rashid’s suspected ties to international terrorism were not sufficient to deport him, but there were “grounds to deport him as he was in fact an illegal foreigner.” (In an affidavit signed by Rashid, he seems to have admitted to bribing an agent to enter the country and receive a fake work permit).

We are signatories to relevant international conventions and we also have a responsibility to ensure that nothing happens in our country which jeopardises the security of our citizens.

[Zahir Omar’s] unfounded and deleterious insinuations that our country can engage in abduction or any other illegal activities are not only harmful to the community relations in our society, but they also have the effect of undermining the international standing of our country.

Despite claims that the SA government operated within the law, the Mail & Guardian says in an editorial piece that “At best, local and international law were bent out of all recognition; more likely both were broken,” and that “it is sad, and embarrassing” that SA has made “its pitch for inclusion in” the “club of shame”, joining the “list of countries that have colluded in covert rendition operations.”