Dear Editor,
The extradition case of State v. Azruddin Mohamed stands as a pivotal moment in the realm of international law, underscoring the critical importance of fairness and due process. These principles are not merely abstract ideals; they are the very foundation of justice that must govern our legal proceedings. The Extradition Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, ratified on July 29, 1932, is explicit in its stipulations, especially in Article 4, which unequivocally states that extradition must be denied if the individual has either been discharged or is still facing trial for the same offence in their home country or territory.
It is essential to emphasize that if Azruddin has been discharged, the extradition request must be dismissed immediately. This is not negotiable; it is a mandate rooted deeply in international legal obligations designed to safeguard individuals from the overreach of foreign legal systems. Treaties such as this are not mere formalities; they represent the mutual respect and agreement between sovereign nations to adhere to standards of justice, ensuring that no individual is unjustly transferred to a jurisdiction where they might face legal jeopardy that they should not be subjected to. In simpler non legal terms he will not be in a position to properly or adequately defend himself.
Furthermore, if it is established that Azruddin is still undergoing trial for the alleged offences, or by extension, can still undergo, all extradition proceedings must come to a halt. This provision is vital to protect the rights of the accused and uphold the integrity of national sovereign legal proceedings. Extraditing an individual who is still contending with legal challenges in their own land is a breach of the principles of justice we are bound to uphold. We must critically assess whether the alleged crime falls within the specific categories outlined in Article 3 of the treaty. If there is any ambiguity regarding the classification of the offence under Guyanese law, serious and substantial questions emerge that challenge the legitimacy of the extradition request itself.
However, while the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Bill 2024 introduces new evidentiary rules, it does not diminish the obligations set forth in the original treaty. Evidence acquired in the U.S. cannot simply be presented as is; it must endure rigorous scrutiny to ensure compliance with due process standards. An affidavit from a competent authority must accompany any evidence presented, safeguarding the rights of the accused and affirming our commitment to an equitable legal process. All persons depicted in any incriminating evidence presented must be sought, the requesting state neither has the right to pick and choose a particular fugitive among the ones depicted in the evidence nor to excuse anyone. This is because of the principle of equality before international law.
It is imperative that Azruddin is afforded competent legal representation, ensuring he can defend himself in a court that respects his rights. Observations throughout 2025 reveal a concerning trend in the current U.S. Administration’s approach to legal proceedings and extradition practices, which often appear to disregard the fundamental tenets of justice. As I am not an authority in that area of law, it is advisable to seek an expert opinion. But as a lawyer, what I do strongly subscribe to is my argument and proposition that his rights are recognized under international law since he is a representative of Guyana solely by being our LOO-In-Waiting.
In conclusion, we must reaffirm that the principles of fairness and due process are the cornerstones of justice. Every endeavour, whether concerning extradition or domestic legal processes, must maintain a steadfast commitment to uphold individual rights and the rule of law. The situation surrounding Azruddin Mohamed serves as a crucial reminder of the ongoing necessity for vigilance and adherence to these principles in the face of international legal obligations and human rights. Let us ensure that justice prevails, reflecting our dedication to the essential values of our legal systems.