Latest update September 30th, 2026 10:30 AM
Latest News
- Unrest in Vigilance… villagers set truck ablaze as cops arrest wanted man’s family over missing Surinamese men
- Exxon pushes 4th oil project to 270,000 barrels per day
- Oil prices fall on signs Middle East crude flows recovering
- NRF oversight committee appointed without National Assembly nominee
- Corentyne man hacked to death during family fued
Double jeopardy?
Dear Editor,
The Attorney General’s recent explanation of the dismissal of the charges against the future leader of the opposition and his reference to the extradition treaty and double jeopardy (non bis in idem) was very informative. On the surface it appears to be a very solid reason, but after reviewing Article 4 and Article 7 of the treaty (signed December 1931 between the UK and the U.S., Reference MoHA.gov.gy) which state, “the extradition shall not take place if the person claimed has already been tried and punished, or is still under trial…” and “a person surrendered can in no case be kept in custody or be brought to trial …for any other crime or offense …. until he has been restored…” respectively, do not place the charges against the accused in Guyana at risk if a trial has not commenced.
Extradition can occur and the charges placed on the accused in Guyana may stand if no trial occurs until after the proceedings related to the extradition have been completed and the accused returned to Guyana. This approach removes the risk of double jeopardy preventing extradition. It should also be noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that dual sovereignty, which refers to being prosecuted by two different governments, does not violate double jeopardy.
This doctrine was first applied in 1922 (United States v. Lanza. Reference ballotpedia.org). However, as previously mentioned the risk of double jeopardy occurring in this case is very remote if a trial is initially delayed, and the dismissal of any charges that would result in such a situation can be easily accomplished after the trial in the U.S. Thus, reducing the risk of no recourse for the recovery of the lost tax revenue. However, the learned Attorney General was confident in his discussion that those funds can be recovered without the charges remaining in place during extradition.
Best regards,
Mr. Jamil Changlee
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Similar Articles
Website Hits
Blunt of the day
Sports
Features/Columnists
Sir. Ronald Sanders
The GHK Lall Column
Weekend Cartoon
