Dear Editor,
I hold no brief for the incoming Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Azruddin Mohamed, but what is most concerning today is the answer to the question – who is next? All the businessmen who are actively engaged in tax evasion against the mission of the Guyana Revenue Authority can be seen at public events, rendering themselves into peons of the PPP in this atmosphere that appears as a quasi-dictatorship. It is from this background that, in order to develop a great society, we as a people, must ensure that we safeguard the constitutional rights of every citizen, irrespective of the political demands of the rulers. In the end the law matters.
The recent debate over extradition has raised serious concerns about the rule of law in Guyana. While the Mohamed family’s case belongs to the courts, the larger principles require calm, objective review free from politics. It is with this commitment to legal precision that I must challenge the position advanced by the Attorney General, Mohabir Anil Nandlall, regarding the purported extradition treaty between Guyana and the United States. His reliance on the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom appears to be fundamentally misplaced and requires urgent clarification. The Attorney General’s argument rests on a treaty that, upon examination of its own text, does not encompass the territory that was then British Guiana. The critical articles of the 1931 Treaty are unequivocal:
● Article 2 defines its territorial application as “Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and all parts of His Britannic Majesty’s dominions overseas other than those enumerated in Article 14.”
● Article 14 explicitly lists the Dominions eligible for accession, such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. British Guiana is conspicuously absent.
● Article 16 further lists British Protectorates and mandated territories, from the Bechuanaland Protectorate to Tanganyika. Again, British Guiana is not mentioned. (Source: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-47/pdf/STATUTE-47-Pg2122.pdf#page=1[1])
The historical record demonstrates conclusively that British Guiana was a Crown Colony, possessing a legal status distinct from the Dominions and Protectorates enumerated in the treaty. There is no evidence that the 1931 Treaty was formally extended to include British Guiana. Furthermore, the Attorney General fails to acknowledge that this 1931 Treaty was superseded by subsequent agreements between the U.S. and the U.K., namely the 1972 treaty and its 1985 supplement, culminating in the modern 2003 Extradition Treaty. None of these later instruments lists Guyana as a successor state or party. The principle of legal succession is not automatic; it requires explicit declaration or demonstration of intent, which appears to be absent in this case.
While I have ultimate respect for Mr. Mohabir Anil Nandlall and his legal acumen, he clearly cannot deliver on this one since he does not have the legal foundation to build his case and the Jamaicans know this fact. But who cares, if I am going to get a fee of US$100,000 or US$1,000,000 from these desperate folks in the Government of Guyana, why not. A fool and his money are always parted and so Guyana suffers financially because of a desperate group of rulers. One only had to engage esteemed jurists like Mr. Ralph Ramkarran, Mr. Barton Scotland, Mr. Edward Luckhoo, or Mr. Robin Stoby, all Senior Counsels, and they could have easily brought great clarity to the matter at hand; there was no need to go to the Jamaicans.
The practical implications of this legal ambiguity are not merely academic. The case of Roger Khan is instructive. His 2006 transfer to U.S. jurisdiction was not effected through a formal extradition process from Guyana, but through a complex security operation involving other territories in a classic “snatch and grab” clandestine move more associated with the mob. There was a reason for such an operation since Guyana does not have a formal extradition treaty with the United States. This precedent starkly highlights the very legal vacuum the Attorney General now seeks to fill with a historically tenuous argument that cannot stand up to judicial scrutiny, unless the judiciary has agreed to be compromised, which I do not foresee. Thus the need of the PPP phantoms to personally attack the good Magistrate on social media with all manner of nasty comments.
At the end of the day, this case will have to be decided by the Caribbean Court of Justice and that will take time; as much as three years from now, so patience is essential. Thus, we should not expect a situation as we observe in Pakistan where former cricketer and politician Mr. Imran Khan sits in jail on several trumped up charges in a society where the judiciary has failed the people as it panders to a quasi-political dictatorship. Guyana is not so far gone as yet.
The core of this issue in Guyana transcends any single case. It touches upon the bedrock of our democracy: due process and the protection of every citizen’s constitutional rights. A robust extradition framework is essential for international cooperation, but it must be built on an unambiguous and solid legal foundation. To proceed on the basis of a contested and potentially inapplicable treaty risks undermining the integrity of our judiciary and sets a dangerous precedent where legal processes are perceived as being shaped by political expediency rather than established law. This begs the question – why has the PPP not formally signed a bilateral extradition treaty with the United States as yet, as one sovereign state to another?
The PPP must learn and fast that we cannot combat crime by sacrificing the very liberties and legal principles that define us as a civilized nation. The government’s duty is to ensure that its actions are beyond legal reproach. In this instance, a transparent and honest assessment of the true legal basis for extradition is urgently required to preserve public confidence in our institutions and the rule of law. That is why we cannot be seen to be making it up as we go along as a means to get rid of a political opponent. What Mr. Nandlall, is trying to do is trade the fundamental constitutional rights of the Mohameds for political convenience, since clearly the success of the WIN party can never be trumped by the PNC or any of its other reincarnations and the PPP is afraid of the political potential of the WIN Team come 2030. So what to do? Are they trying to turn Guyana into Pakistan?
Such a political strategy by the Executive, however, is misplaced and should not find its way into the Courts of Guyana since it only serves to undermine the role of our judiciary and places the liberty of our citizens at the mercy of processes that incorporate foreign players, processes, and untestable documents to achieve the intended political end. Such a framework always backfire on the rulers; reflect on Syria. The Guyanese people must reflect on this carefully also and do whatever is in their power to stop the PPP from interfering with the court proceedings. Today, the PPP came for the Mohameds, but tomorrow, they will come for you once your politics does not surrender to the PPP. In the final analysis, this entire process is political and can be classified as political persecution – a perilous step backward for due process and the protection of individual rights in Guyana.