The Guyana Court of Appeal has ruled that extradition proceedings against Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed could continue in the Magistrate’s Court but has barred a final decision until their constitutional appeal is determined.
The unanimous ruling was delivered yesterday by acting Chancellor Roxane George and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan following a hearing on Wednesday.
The Mohameds had asked the appellate court to halt the extradition proceedings entirely, arguing that they could lose their liberty before the court rules on their substantive challenge to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act.
The court, however, said it was “not satisfied that those proceedings should be halted entirely” after considering whether the appeal was arguable, the risks of injustice, the balance of convenience, possible prejudice and the public interest in the orderly and expeditious conduct of extradition cases.
It nevertheless found that protection was required to preserve the effectiveness of the appeal.
The court consequently ordered that the proceedings before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman may continue, but that their “final disposition” must be stayed until the appeal is heard and determined.
The substantive appeal will be case-managed and heard on an expedited basis.
The ruling means that the Magistrate’s Court may continue hearing evidence and submissions in the extradition case but cannot make a final committal decision while the constitutional appeal remains pending.
The proceedings are part-heard, with further hearing dates scheduled for September 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
In their application, the Mohameds had argued that allowing the committal proceedings to conclude before the appeal was heard could make any subsequent stay ineffective.
They contended that a committal order would have immediate consequences for their liberty since their existing bail would lapse. Their attorneys argued that, once such an order was issued, a later stay could not reverse the period of liberty already lost.
The father and son therefore maintained that the issue was not limited to whether they might ultimately be surrendered to the United States. It also concerned whether they could be detained before the Court of Appeal determines the constitutionality of the provisions governing their possible committal.
The court’s order effectively addresses that concern by preventing a final decision while allowing the underlying proceedings to advance.
The Mohameds were arrested on October 31, 2025, following an extradition request from the United States. Their proceedings began on January 6 before Magistrate Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Courts.
Their appeal stems from a February 24 ruling by the acting Chief Justice in constitutional proceedings challenging sections of the Fugitive Offenders Act, including amendments made in 2009.
The acting Chief Justice declared Section 8(3)(B)(b) of the Act unconstitutional but upheld other challenged provisions.
The Mohameds have not appealed the declaration concerning paragraph (b). They are asking the Court of Appeal to affirm that finding while overturning other parts of the ruling.
Their attorneys contend that Section 8(3)(B)(a) cannot continue to operate after paragraph (b) was struck down because both provisions formed part of a single legislative mechanism.
They have also challenged Section 8(3)(B)(c), arguing that it restricts the ability of persons facing extradition to challenge breaches of statutory requirements and therefore unconstitutionally excludes the court’s jurisdiction.
Other issues concern the safeguards governing extradition between Guyana and the United States, including protection against possible onward extradition to another country.
The Mohameds previously secured an interim stay of the extradition proceedings from the Caribbean Court of Justice in March while related litigation was pending.
That stay was discharged on July 29 after the regional court dismissed their challenge to the validity of the Authority to Proceed issued under the Fugitive Offenders Act, allowing the extradition hearings to resume.
The current appeal concerns separate constitutional questions about provisions of the Act governing the Magistrate’s Court proceedings.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva appeared for the Mohameds.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall SC appeared with Nigel Hawke, Shoshana Lall, Joshua Cullen and Dishon Persaud for the State.
Discussion