AG backs US Govt’s guarantee against 3rd country extradition 

…Judges reserve ruling after 3 hours of submission, over 2000 pages on legal authority

Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, has defended assurances given by the United States (US) to prevent the onwards extradition of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. He argued that the guarantees strengthen existing protections under the extradition treaty and urged the Court of Appeal to accept them.
Nandlall made the argument on Tuesday during approximately three hours of submissions in the constitutional challenge brought by the Mohameds against provisions of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act. The Court of Appeal has reserved its judgement for after hearing arguments from the parties.
Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, SC, said the Court of Appeal must examine more than 2000 pages of legal authorities and extensive submissions before delivering its judgement. She reminded the parties of the court’s one-month deadline for issuing judgements and assured that every effort would be made to reach a decision after reviewing the extensive material. The parties will be notified once the court’s decision is available.
The panel also included Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan.
During his submissions, Nandlall maintained that Article Seven of the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the US, which Guyana inherited at independence, governs the offences for which a person may be prosecuted following extradition.
He argued that the additional assurance was obtained as a precaution and was supplied once the issue arose in the proceedings.
He told the court that the US had confirmed it was bound by the treaty and would prosecute and punish the Mohameds only for the offences for which their extradition was requested, or offences committed after their surrender.
Addressing the question of onwards extradition, Nandlall quoted the US assurance to Guyana, which stated that Washington would not re-extradite the two men to a third country for an offence committed before their surrender without the consent of Guyana’s responsible minister.
The AG said, “While the United States is not, therefore, obliged to provide the assurance requested, in light of the Government of Guyana’s request, the United States assures the Government of Guyana that, in this particular case, it shall not re-extradite [the Mohameds] to a third state for any offence committed before their extradition without the consent of the Minister of Home Affairs of Guyana.”
He contended that the guarantee was not a new arrangement requiring separate treatment under the law but formed part of the existing extradition framework between the two countries.
He told the court, “This assurance is nothing outside our extraneous. It’s part and parcel of the arrangement.”
“Bilateral assurances, I say, with the greatest of respect, obviously, carry greater force. But even unilateral assurances have been uniformly accepted. And we have the cases; I don’t think I need to go through them. They set out the principles governing unilateral assurance. And I say, Your Honours, that bilateral assurances will be accepted a fortiori,” he submitted.
Nandlall disputed the Mohameds’ arguments that the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act were unconstitutional, maintaining that they had failed to clearly demonstrate how the challenged provisions violated the Constitution or infringed their fundamental rights.
He also defended Section 8(3)(B)(a), arguing that it could remain in force despite the High Court’s decision to strike down Section 8(3)(B)(b).
The AG maintained that the two provisions were severable and that the invalidation of one did not automatically render the other unconstitutional.
In February, Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh ruled that Section 8(3)(B)(b) was unconstitutional because it required courts and executive authorities to interpret a treaty or foreign law as containing a safeguard even when that provision was not actually written into it.
The safeguard concerned protection against onwards extradition – meaning the Mohameds could not be sent by the US to a third country for an offence committed before their extradition without Guyana’s consent
However, the Chief Justice held that the protection against onwards extradition was already implicit in Article Seven of the 1931 Extradition Treaty between Guyana and the US.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who represented the Mohameds, challenged the Attorney General’s interpretation of Article Seven of the 1931 Extradition Treaty, arguing that the provision does not expressly prevent the onwards extradition of the men to a third country.
Forde submitted that Article Seven governs the offences for which a person may be held or tried after being surrendered to the requesting state but does not establish a safeguard against subsequent transfer to another jurisdiction.

“It contains no words about surrender to a third state,” Forde told the court, maintaining that the treaty’s provisions could not be interpreted as satisfying a statutory requirement that demanded an express safeguard against onwards extradition.
He said, “We respectfully submit that Article Seven regulates custody and trial in the receiving state. It contains no words about surrender to a third state. And the respondent [Attorney General] in this matter would have conceded that silence at paragraph eight of the submissions.”
He further argued that assurances subsequently provided by Washington could not substitute for a provision that must already exist within the relevant extradition arrangement.
Forde submitted, “A reassurance about an arrangement is not the provision made by it.”
The attorney also questioned the timing of the assurances, pointing out that the Mohameds were taken into custody on October 31, 2025, while the diplomatic notes containing the assurances were dated December 2025.
He argued that whether the statutory requirements had been satisfied was a matter for the court to determine, rather than the executive.
He maintained that the High Court’s finding that protection against onwards extradition was implicit in Article Seven was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Fugitive Offenders Act, particularly the provision requiring an express safeguard within the relevant arrangement.
Forde further argued that if the statutory provision requiring that safeguard remained applicable, the invalidation of the subsection that deemed such protection to exist could leave the requirement unsatisfied.
He urged the appellate court to distinguish between the treaty’s restrictions on prosecuting a person for offences other than those for which extradition was granted and a separate legal requirement governing onwards extradition to a third country.
The appeal flows from a February 2026 decision by Chief Justice Singh, who invalidated a provision of the Fugitive Offenders Act but determined that protection against onwards extradition was implicit in the existing treaty. The constitutional proceedings are distinct from the extradition case being heard at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.
That matter, initiated following a request by the US, remains without a final determination while the Court of Appeal considers the constitutional issues.
The extradition proceedings before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman are continuing on October 21 and 22, but she remains barred by the Court of Appeal from delivering a final decision until the constitutional challenge is determined.
The Mohameds were sanctioned by the US in 2024 over alleged gold-related tax evasion and corruption and were indicted in Florida in 2025 on 11 counts linked to an alleged US$50 million gold-export tax evasion scheme and the alleged evasion of more than US$1 million in taxes on a Lamborghini imported into Guyana.
The US is seeking the extradition of the Mohameds to face charges relating to these crimes. Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, were each granted $150,000 bail and ordered to surrender their passports and report to the Ruimveldt Police Station as part of their bail conditions in the ongoing extradition proceedings.