Dear Editor,
Please permit me space in your esteemed newspaper to share my views on the topic of the extradition of the Mohameds. Why the Use of Foreign Lawyers in the Mohamed Extradition Case is justified[1]. Some have argued that the Government of Guyana should have hired only local lawyers to represent the State in the Mohamed extradition matter. That view, though understandable, overlooks key legal and practical realities.
First, extradition is not an ordinary criminal case; it involves the intersection of international treaty obligations, foreign evidence standards, and dual-jurisdiction procedures. The Government of Guyana is not prosecuting the Mohameds — it is acting as the requested state under the 1931 U.K.–U.S. Extradition Treaty (extended to Guyana). Its legal role is to ensure that the U.S. request complies with Guyanese law and international law. This requires attorneys who are familiar not only with the Guyana Extradition Act, Cap. 10:04, but also with U.S. extradition jurisprudence and the U.K. model treaty framework from which Guyana’s system derives.
Second, Caribbean-based counsel with cross-border extradition experience are often retained to ensure impartiality and avoid conflicts of interest. Local criminal lawyers may have professional or personal connections with the accused or their business associates, especially in high-profile cases. Using outside counsel, therefore, safeguards perceived fairness, prevents accusations of political bias, and strengthens the credibility of the process before both domestic and foreign courts.
Third, this is not unprecedented. In prior cases—such as the Vishnu Bisram extradition matter (2019) and the Barry Dataram case (2015)—regional or external counsel were engaged to support or advise the State, especially when the matter required coordination with U.S. or Trinidadian authorities. Such collaboration has long been part of the mutual legal assistance practice within CARICOM.
Finally, as the Attorney-General has pointed out, the lawyers are not “defending the U.S.” but representing the State of Guyana in fulfilling its treaty duties. The U.S. cannot appear directly in a Guyanese court; only the Attorney-General, or counsel retained by him, can do so under Guyanese law. Critics may say: “This is an unnecessary expense — capable local lawyers could have handled it.”
That may be true for an ordinary case, but extradition requires navigating a complex interface of international and domestic law. The small additional cost ensures procedural integrity, protects Guyana from treaty breaches, and sets a precedent that our courts meet global standards. In diplomacy and law, credibility costs less than embarrassment.