Dear Editor,
BY now, the case pertaining to the requested extradition of the Mohameds has captured and held the attention of the public. That is as it should be. The matter raises a broader question that all Guyanese should consider: in what ways, and to what extent, should a modern, rules based democracy balance its commitment to due process at home against its treaty obligations abroad?
The answers to those questions, rooted in law and in our national interest, lead to a conclusion: we should honour this request, once the courts have determined that the legal tests are met and that human rights conditions are in place.
The extradition process is not a political favour. It is a legal mechanism defined by statute, treaty, and judicial oversight.
When Guyana responds to valid requests, we send a message that treaties are not toothless and that our courts are reliable partners in the fight against transnational crime. That matters. It strengthens Guyana’s hand when we seek co-operation—from financial intelligence to fugitive recovery. Reciprocity only works if both sides keep their commitments.
On the other hand, baseless denials only invite the opposite conclusion: that Guyana is an attractive and safe destination for anyone with the means to buy a plane ticket in the hope of outrunning a warrant. For an economy in search of diversified investment and closer security co-operation, credibility in the justice sector is a strategic asset.
Granting extradition also helps keep communities safe. It ensures that serious allegations will be adjudicated where the evidence, victims, and investigative records are situated. If the requesting state can show a prima facie case, and if the offences charged satisfy dual criminality tests, allowing the accused to escape prosecution and punishment in that jurisdiction seriously weakens accountability. Granting extradition in those circumstances, by contrast, sends a strong signal: Guyana does not offer safe haven to fugitives of any surname, status, or social connection.
The extradition process is an evidentiary and legal one, not a political one. Guyana’s judges will decide whether the request satisfies statutory requirements, including dual criminality, the sufficiency of evidence, speciality (prosecution limited to the extradited charges) and the exclusion of political offences.
Defence counsel may object to the record, test assurances on human rights conditions, and raise procedural or substantive challenges. The adversarial process does not need repair—it is precisely how the system protects against error or abuse. Extradition, it should be added, does not presume guilt. It merely enables a trial in the proper forum. The Mohameds, like all defendants, are entitled to the presumption of innocence until a jury or judge has decided otherwise.
Robust legal co-operation has many positive spillovers. It steadies bilateral relations, reduces friction in regional security sector work, and reassures partners that Guyana is squarely aligned with international anti corruption, narcotics, fraud and financial crimes norms. Investors and development partners take note of these indicators. A state that is seen to be principled and predictable in rule of law matters reduces perceived risk, especially as Guyana manages rapid growth and looks to diversify its economy.
Crime knows no borders, but neither should accountability. The extradition process respects the interests of victims by allowing for prosecutions to take place where the harm is alleged to have occurred, and where the evidence and witnesses are concentrated. It also protects the integrity of our own system by avoiding the strain and distortion that occur when domestic courts are forced to adjudicate foreign-centred cases with incomplete records. Speciality, too, ensures no “mission creep”: the requesting state may prosecute only the offences for which extradition was granted.
Bias or political motive: Claims that the charges are the result of political bias or malice can be tested in court. If the case has the scent of retaliation, then extradition should be denied. But if the requesting state makes out its prima facie case and the courts are satisfied, then testing the evidence is a matter for the trial court with jurisdiction over the alleged conduct.
The challenge with extradition decisions is that they are difficult precisely because they matter. They sit at the crossroads of justice, sovereignty, and human dignity. In the case of the Mohameds, the national interest points to a conclusion: we should honour a valid request, once it has cleared the courts, and with appropriate safeguards in place. That choice would uphold Guyana’s commitments, bolster its credibility, and reinforce a principle as old as the law itself: that accountability should follow the evidence, wherever it leads.
Note: The Mohameds, like all accused persons, are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.
Sincerely,
Philip Inshanally