Extradition

With the arrest of Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed by the Guyana Police Force upon the request of the US for their extradition to that country, there has been some confusion about the matter and how it will proceed. Firstly, extradition is the process by which one state (the requested state) surrenders an individual found on its territory to another state (the requesting state) where he is wanted either to stand trial for an offence he is alleged to have committed or to serve a penal sentence already pronounced against him. Over the recent decades there have been several extraditions to the US, so the legal ground is not exactly virgin territory.
Firstly, extradition has to be conducted under a specific treaty that the two states would have signed and also by the local legislation that would have codified it into domestic law. In our case the treaty governing extradition between the US and Guyana was signed in 1931 between Great Britain – which then governed us as British Guiana – and the USA and was ratified the following year. The treaty describes the process and the offences for which extradition can be granted. Upon attaining independence in 1966, the treaty remained in force in Guyana, which was the successor state.  Its application in British Guiana’s domestic law was governed by the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1881, which was comprehensively amended in 1988 and then subsequently, specific aspects in 2009 and 2024 to deal with contingencies arising. For instance, an extradition request by the US to T&T had failed last year because of the nature of the evidence, and probably seeking to close a similar loophole here in Guyana, the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Bill 10 of 2024 was enacted.  It states simply, “A record of evidence of the case against the person, including evidence that would not otherwise be admissible under the laws of Guyana, shall be admissible as evidence.”
The process is initiated by the requesting state – here the US – making a formal request to the Government of Guyana, and in the case under consideration, even though the individuals were indicted in June 2024, this was only done on October 30, 2025. The accusation that this was time just before the start of the 13th Parliament, where Azruddin Mohamed will enter as leader of WIN, is totally out of the Government as alleged.
The request would have been accompanied by evidentiary material supporting the indictments issued by the US Court, and this would be examined by institutions such as the DPP and finally by the Minister of Home Affairs for approval or denial. The next step was his issuance of an “authority to proceed” to a Magistrate. To ensure the persons requested to be extradited appear before the Magistrate, the police would have been instructed to arrest them and bring them to the Magistrate Court. This was done on October 31.
The Magistrate would then proceed to hold a committal hearing to determine if the evidence presented by the US is sufficient under Guyanese law to warrant a trial. In this instance, the charges were read to the individuals, his defence lawyers made a number of objections, and the Magistrate set the substantive hearings to begin on November 10. In the meantime the defendants were asked to lodge their passports with the court, and a nominal bail of $150,000 each was set to ensure they would appear at subsequent hearings.
In subsequent hearings the accused will be permitted to present counter-evidence and can subsequently appeal any adverse decision to the High Court, Court of Appeal, and the Caribbean Court of Justice. For instance, the offence for which extradition is requested must be a crime in both the United States and Guyana – dual criminality.
If the final court commits the accused for extradition, the final decision to surrender them is made by the Minister of Home Affairs, and he issues an order for them to be handed over to US authorities.
As can be surmised, this process can be very lengthy.