THE HAGUE – Members of the Dutch Parliament are questioning why the Governor of Curaçao retains the final authority in extradition cases and are asking the Dutch government to better justify the governor's role under a proposed new Kingdom law.
The concerns were raised by the Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA) parliamentary faction during the review of draft legislation that would establish a new Kingdom Act governing extraditions from Curaçao, Aruba and Sint Maarten.
The proposed law largely transfers the existing extradition rules into formal Kingdom legislation. The change is required because amendments to the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands no longer allow Kingdom matters to be regulated solely through Orders in Council without a statutory legal basis.
Under the proposed procedure, the Joint Court of Justice first determines whether an extradition request is legally admissible.
If the court rejects the request, the Governor must follow that ruling. However, if the court declares the extradition admissible, the Governor makes the final decision on whether the individual will actually be surrendered to the requesting country.
The Governor may require guarantees regarding issues such as detention conditions, the right to a fair trial, or assurances that the death penalty will not be carried out.
The CDA said the government has not sufficiently explained why the Governor—not a politically accountable minister—continues to make the final decision in extradition matters.
The questions follow concerns raised during the public consultation process by several criminal defense attorneys through the Curaçao Bar Association. Although the Bar Association later clarified that it merely collected and forwarded the submissions and that they do not represent its official position, the concerns have now been echoed in Parliament.
Before the bill can proceed, the Dutch government must respond to the questions submitted by the CDA and other parliamentary factions.