GUYANA-Court of Appeal reserves ruling in extradition matter.

GEORGETOWN, Guyana, CMC – The Court of Appeal has reserved its ruling in the constitutional challenge brought by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed, over the country’s extradition treaty and the constitutionality of the Fugitive Offenders Act.

The matter was heard in the absence of the Opposition Leader, who remains in custody over the shooting incident near the home of the head of the Special Branch, Prem Narine, on Tuesday morning.

Appearing before acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Roxane George and justices Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan, attorneys for the Mohammeds argued that Section 8 (3) (b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act guards against a citizen of Guyana being extradited to a third state without the consent of the Minister, but that safeguard is not embedded in the treaty.

The lawyers argue that both the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the US, which Guyana adopted, and sections of the Fugitive Offenders Act are inconsistent with the Constitution.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde told the Court that the Act requires that protection against extradition to a third State be embedded in the treaty arrangement.

He said the assurances offered by the US through Diplomatic Notes are not sufficient, arguing that the diplomatic notes came five weeks after the extradition request was made.

“The safeguard does two things. It keeps with Guyana, through its Minister, the decision whether a person Guyana has surrendered may be sent on to a third State. And it protects the person’s liberty, because Parliament attached the condition not only to extradition but to committal and to custody. Article 139 of the Constitution permits a person’s liberty to be taken only as authorized by law,” Forde said.

Attorney General Anil Nandlall told the Court of Appeal that the United States had assured the Guyana government that Mohamed would not be extradited to a third State.

He said that Article 7 of the Treaty provides that protection.

“The treaty now is between Guyana and the US. It does not speak to any other territory. It doesn’t speak to any activity outside of the United States and Guyana. And in this case, a request has been made for two citizens of Guyana, and the request is being processed in accordance with law.

“If it eventuates in the extradition of the two applicants, they are only to be dealt with in the United States…there is no third State that is contemplated by the treaty,” Nandlall said, arguing further that the US has since offered Guyana the assurances that the Mohameds will not be extradited to a third state for any other offense.

“Very early, the State of Guyana recognized that it was going to be a legal issue and solicited from the United States of America in relation to the existing treaty arrangements, as countries do in extradition cases, we sought from the United States of America through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs an assurance that should these two individuals be extradited to the United States of America, give us that assurance the United States of America that you will not send them to a third State, and the Americans through the appropriate channel have furnished that assurance,” Nandlall added.

Until a decision is handed down, the Appeal Court’s earlier order preventing the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court from issuing its final decision in the extradition proceedings remains in force. The extradition hearings, however, may continue.

The Mohameds were indicted in the United States in October 2025 on charges including wire/mail fraud, money laundering, and bribery linked to a US$50 million gold smuggling and tax evasion scheme.

Justice George-Wiltshire did not give a date for the ruling, saying that the Court of Appeal needed time to peruse the more than 2,000 pages of submissions. Even if the magistrate completes the extradition hearing, she must await the Court of Appeal’s decision before deciding whether the Mohameds are to be committed.