Constitutional challenge: Mohameds’ lawyer concedes appeal faces uphill battle – AG

…says CoA bound by 1992 ruling

Attorney General (AG) and Legal Affairs Minister Anil Nandlall, SC, has said that the Court of Appeal is expected to rule against United States-sanctioned and indicted Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, in their constitutional challenge to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act, pointing to a 1992 ruling which he said the appellate court is bound to follow.

The Court of Appeal has concluded hearing arguments in the challenge and is expected to deliver its decision after reviewing the submissions made by both sides.
Speaking on his Tuesday night programme, Issues In The News, Nandlall said the Mohameds’ attorney, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, had acknowledged in written submissions that the court would be bound by the earlier decision in Stephen King and the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Prisons, unless it found that ruling to be “palpably wrong”.
Nandlall said Forde had accepted that the 1992 decision did not meet that threshold.
“…So, I don’t think, even Mr Forde concedes to his credit that King doesn’t fall into that category, and therefore the Court of Appeal will be bound by King,” the AG said.
He argued that the precedent supports the position that the protection against onwards extradition being disputed by the Mohameds is already implicit in the existing extradition treaty between Guyana and the United States.
According to Nandlall, the ruling would mean the appeal could not succeed if the Court of Appeal follows the earlier decision.
He said the court’s decision would not necessarily end the legal battle, as the matter is expected to proceed to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), regardless of the outcome at the appellate level.

Constitutional challenge
The constitutional challenge centres on provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act and whether the existing extradition framework provides sufficient protection against the United States transferring the Mohameds to a third country for offences committed before their surrender without Guyana’s consent.

During arguments before the Court of Appeal, Nandlall maintained that Article 7 of the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, which Guyana inherited at independence, governs the offences for which a person may be prosecuted after extradition.
He also relied on assurances provided by the United States that it would not re-extradite the Mohameds to a third country for an offence committed before their surrender without the consent of Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs.
The attorney general argued that the assurances reinforced protections already contained in the existing treaty arrangement and did not constitute a separate legal framework.
Forde, however, challenged that interpretation, arguing that Article 7 regulates prosecution in the receiving state but does not expressly address onwards extradition to a third country.
“It contains no words about surrender to a third state,” Forde told the court, maintaining that subsequent assurances could not replace a safeguard that the law required to be expressly provided for in the relevant arrangement.
The appeal follows a February 2026 ruling by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who struck down Section 8(3)(B)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act as unconstitutional. The provision required courts and executive authorities to treat a treaty or foreign law as containing a safeguard even where that protection was not expressly written into it.
However, the Chief Justice held that protection against onwards extradition was already implicit in Article 7 of the treaty.
The Mohameds challenged that conclusion, arguing that an implied protection was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements.

Extradition
The constitutional proceedings are separate from the extradition case before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts. That matter remains pending, with the magistrate having to embargo her decision until the constitutional challenge is determined by the Court of Appeal.
The committal proceedings are expected to resume on November 2.
The United States is seeking the extradition of Azruddin Mohamed and his father to face charges relating to an alleged gold-export tax evasion scheme and other alleged tax offences. The men have denied the allegations through their legal challenge to the extradition process.
Both men were granted $150,000 bail and ordered to surrender their passports and report to the Ruimveldt Police Station as part of their bail conditions.