Well, if you really are a lawyer, Omniloquacious, then God help your clients coz you are mounting arguements that are riddled with obvious factual errors. In fact there seems to be one in every utterance. I don't have time to go through them all but here are a few...
Wrong: Firstly, China and Kenya don't even have an extradition treaty, so how are you sure they "satisfied the requirements... and presented a valid request for their extradition"? In fact, they directly violated a Kenyan High Court order by forcibly putting them on a plane to China.
Wrong: Charges were brought and they were found not guilty - in the High Court. Others were found guilty, For either verdict, charges would have first needed to have been "brought against the scammers" - you can see that, right?.
Wrong: The Taiwanese officials were in fact barred from even talking to them. Pretty hard to gather evidence when you can't even talk to them.
Your writing is full of words like 'i doubt', 'suppose', 'evidently', and 'as far as i am aware' (not far, evidently!), which I suppose means you don't know what you're talking about. Let's be honest, you weren't at the meetings between Kenyan and Chinese officials and therefore you have got no idea whatsoever what happened in those meetings.
But just out of curiosity, what would all your evidentlys and supposedlys make of this:
Put that together with China's growing fear of a rising national idenity in Taiwan and the active steps they are taking to suppress that then surely you will concede this has got nothing to do with justice.