Extradition

Expecting allies and friends not to allow each other’s anti-government personalities on their territory should not be mixed with judicial cooperation between countries. Under international code and established principles, even if there is an extradition of criminals agreement between any two countries, if the host country has suspicion that the person extradited would not face justice in his homeland, or could be summarily “eradicated” through a mock trial or if the said person has dual nationality, repatriation might not be considered at all.

At times when countries go through a massive transformation and when for the good or bad some elements oppose that transition and seek refuge in some other countries, even if there is an extradition accord between the host and the other government, extradition of such anti-government personalities cannot be considered, as long as they are not involved in any criminal activities in the host country.

It is the right of any government to demand from its friends and allies not to allow their territory to be used by anti-government elements. It is indeed considered hostile if a country allows anti-government elements of a nearby or far away country to train on its territory or worse undertake cross-border attacks. But writing the name of an anti-government personality, handing it over to the “brother” leader of the other country and expecting the anti-government person to be presented on a golden plate can produce no result.

Over the past decades, my journalist friends and I have complained how shallow the Justice Ministry or anti-terror executives of this country have been in demanding the ministry to apply pressure on our allies, particularly European countries, to allow for the extradition of...

Continue reading on: