HIGH COURT

Extradition of Dutch war criminal Guus Kouwenhoven back on the cards

By Caryn Dolley 24 December 2020

Dutch businessman Guus van Kouwenhoven looks on outside the magistrates' court after his extradition court hearing in Cape Town, South Africa, 27 February 2018. (Photo: EPA-EFE / BRETON GEACH)

In February 2020 the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court effectively discharged Guus Kouwenhoven from a legal process that meant he would not be extradited from South Africa to the Netherlands because crimes he was convicted of there were not committed in that country. The State has now successfully appealed this, meaning Kouwenhoven still faces extradition.

Caryn Dolley

An extradition battle between Dutch war criminal Guus Kouwenhoven and prosecutors in South Africa has swung in their favour, with the Western Cape High Court setting aside a previous finding that he should not be sent to the Netherlands.

The ruling made on Wednesday likely presents a major legal stumbling block for Kouwenhoven, who has been based in South Africa for several years, and from where he has been fighting against extradition.

In February this year, the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court found in Kouwenhoven’s favour ruling that he could not be extradited because South Africa’s Extradition Act only allowed for someone to be extradited if the alleged offences were committed within the State wanting the extradition approved.

Why is South Africa providing a haven for an arms dealer convicted of war crimes?

In other words, the Netherlands could not have him extradited because crimes he was previously convicted of had occurred in Liberia.

But the Western Cape’s Director of Public Prosecutions, via Advocate Christopher Burke, pushed ahead with an appeal against the magistrate’s court decision. At the same time, Kouwenhoven’s legal team brought a review of the State’s right to appeal in extradition matters.

On Wednesday it was ruled in the Western Cape High Court that the State’s appeal had succeeded, and the defence’s review application was dismissed.

“It follows that the [Cape Town Magistrates’ Court] erred in law in finding that in terms of [a section] of the Extradition Act Mr Kouwenhoven was only liable to be surrendered for extradition if the crimes for which he was convicted by the Dutch court were committed within the territory of the Netherlands,” the judgment said.

The extradition matter is now expected to go back to the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court where the finding of the high court needs to be implemented.

This could see Kouwenhoven, who is not in custody at the moment, detained.

At the start of December the issue of jurisdiction relating to his extradition hearing had been focused on during the appeal and review proceedings that culminated in Wednesday’s judgment.

Dutch war criminal Guus Kouwenhoven’s bid to evade justice throws up legal puzzles

It had basically been argued that Kouwenhoven could potentially be prosecuted in South Africa or Liberia, where he was said to have committed crimes.

But Wednesday’s judgment said: “I regard as cynical the argument that justice will be served by leaving the prosecution either to South Africa or to the country in which the crimes were committed. 

“Crimes attracting universal jurisdiction are not infrequently perpetrated in countries which, even if they are not failed states or corrupt, lack resources to prosecute international fugitives. The government of the country might be one which the alleged criminal has assisted. That country cannot be compelled to make an extradition request.” 

It said South Africa also had financial constraints and, taking other issues into consideration, including the availability of witnesses and nationality of the accused, it was sometimes preferable for a prosecution to be carried out somewhere other than this country or the country where crimes occurred.

Kouwenhoven’s legal problems in South Africa stretch back to early 2017 – in April that year a Dutch court convicted him for “the illegal supply of weapons to the regime of Charles Taylor in Liberia and Guinea and of participating in war crimes in those countries”.

“The crimes of which he was convicted were not committed within the territory of the Netherlands. They were, though, crimes in respect of which the Netherlands under its law exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction,” Wednesday’s judgment read.

“Mr Kouwenhoven continues to maintain his innocence and complains that the proceedings pursuant to which he was convicted were unfair. We are not concerned with that.”

By the time he was convicted and sentenced in the Netherlands, to 19 years in jail, he was based in Cape Town. 

His legal representative Gary Eisenberg previously told Daily Maverick this case was under appeal in the European Court of Human Rights.

Kouwenhoven was arrested in Cape Town in December 2017 because the Netherlands wanted him extradited there. In November 2019 an extradition hearing proceeded in the Cape Town Magistrates’ Court.

One of Kouwenhoven’s defences was that he should not be extradited to the Netherlands because the crimes he allegedly committed, and was sentenced for, had not unfolded there.

This is what the magistrates’ court had upheld in February resulting in Kouwenhoven being discharged, and what the State effectively and successfully appealed. 

Following the February magistrates’ court ruling, the State had requested that court to state a case in terms of a section of the Criminal Procedures Act. 

This request also related to three questions of law.

The first question was whether a judicial officer conducting an extradition inquiry, or the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, was empowered to question the jurisdiction of a state requesting someone’s extradition. 

The second question was whether jurisdiction was a relevant consideration in an extradition inquiry in which the person had already been convicted by the requesting state, while the third question was whether reference to jurisdiction in the Extradition Act was confined only to territorial jurisdiction.

This third question was pivotal.

Wednesday’s judgment addressed this, saying: “This is the important question of law in this appeal. The answer is that the requirement in [a section] of the Extradition Act that the offence should have been committed ‘within the jurisdiction of’ the requesting state is a requirement that the requesting state should have jurisdiction to try the person in question for the offence, including where applicable the jurisdiction to try such person for an offence committed outside the territory of the requesting state.”

This basically meant, according to the Western Cape High Court, the Netherlands had proper grounds to request his extradition, even though the crimes Kouwenhoven was convicted of had not occurred there.

“A broad interpretation of ‘jurisdiction’ in the Extradition Act would be more consistent with international law, since it would facilitate the extradition of persons charged with or convicted of crimes against humanity where the requesting state is exercising a universal jurisdiction consistent with international law,” the judgment read.

Kouwenhoven also faces other legal issues in South Africa.

In November Home Affairs withdrew his visa and declared him an undesirable person in South Africa. This was after the Southern African Litigation Centre approached the Western Cape High Court in 2019 to challenge the granting of his visa.

Lengthy legal processes prevent ‘undesirable’ Dutch arms dealer Guus Kouwenhoven from being kicked out  of South Africa

Even though he has been declared undesirable, Kouwenhoven cannot simply be deported as there are other legal issues in South Africa that still need to be concluded. DM

Gallery

Comments - share your knowledge and experience

Please note you must be a Maverick Insider to comment. Sign up here or sign in if you are already an Insider.

Everybody has an opinion but not everyone has the knowledge and the experience to contribute meaningfully to a discussion. That’s what we want from our members. Help us learn with your expertise and insights on articles that we publish. We encourage different, respectful viewpoints to further our understanding of the world. View our comments policy here.

All Comments 2

  • As one of numerous foreigners keen to bring much needed skills to ZA, yet have to jump through narrow bureaucratic loops and overcome almost impossible hurdles to be allowed to do so – how is it that ZA seems so happy to have the scum of the world take up residence here? Convicted murderers from Serbia, wanted tax fugitives and fraudsters from Germany and elsewhere, a convicted war criminal from Holland – hard to believe any of these despicable people would have been able to produce the police clearance certificate that everyone else has to submit, along with numerous other documents. I can but imagine one answer: bribes, massive bribes….. Surely worth it if one is then allowed to continue one’s criminal activities here, rather than be imprisoned elsewhere. A concerted effort to check their permits properly should get them on their way to where they belong (behind bars) and the corrupt officials who aided them, too!

  • DM168 INVESTIGATION

    South Africa’s vaccine passport: Have jab, can travel, except to the UK and US

    By Peter Fabricius