The Court of Appeal has reserved its ruling in the Mohameds’ constitutional challenge to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act, after hearing competing arguments over whether Guyana’s extradition arrangements with the United States adequately protect them against transfer to a third country.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall told the court that the United States had provided an assurance concerning onward extradition, while Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, representing Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed, argued that diplomatic assurances could not substitute for the safeguard required by law.
The appeal was heard by Chancellor of the Judiciary Roxane George and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan. An earlier order permitting the extradition hearings to continue, but barring a final decision pending determination of the constitutional appeal, remains in force.
Nandlall argued that the 1931 extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, inherited by Guyana, was consistent with the Fugitive Offenders Act and provided protection against the men being sent to another country.
“It does not speak to any other territory. It doesn’t speak to any activity outside of the United States and Guyana,” he told the court.
He maintained that Article Seven of the treaty provided the relevant protection. He also disclosed that Guyana had sought an assurance through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs after recognising that onward extradition could become a point of legal contention.
“…the Americans through the appropriate channel have furnished that assurance,” Nandlall said.
Forde disputed that the assurance resolved the constitutional issue. He argued that the statutory safeguard preserved the minister’s authority to consent to onward extradition and that the protection had to be incorporated into the applicable treaty arrangements.
According to his submissions, the treaty did not contain the specific safeguard required by the Act, and the diplomatic notes supplied by the United States could not replace it. He also pointed out that the assurances were provided five weeks after the extradition request.
“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 liberty of the person, because Parliament attached the condition not only to extradition but to committal and to custody,” Forde argued.
He invoked Article 139 of the Constitution, which protects personal liberty, submitting that a person’s liberty could only be restricted as authorised by law.
The appeal arises from a February ruling in which the High Court declared one challenged provision of the Fugitive Offenders Act unconstitutional while upholding others.
It was previously reported, the Mohameds have not appealed the declaration concerning Section 8(3)(B)(b). They are seeking to preserve that finding while overturning other parts of the ruling.
Their attorneys contend that Section 8(3)(B)(a) cannot properly continue to operate after paragraph (b) was struck down, arguing that the provisions formed part of a single legislative mechanism. They also challenge paragraph (c), which they say restricts judicial scrutiny of compliance with statutory requirements.
The question of liberty also featured in their earlier application to halt the extradition proceedings entirely. In August that the Mohameds argued that a committal order would cause their existing bail to lapse and could result in detention before their constitutional appeal was determined.
The Court of Appeal declined to stop the proceedings altogether, but ordered that their final disposition be stayed pending determination of the appeal. The order allows Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman to continue hearing evidence and submissions while preventing a final committal decision.
The constitutional appeal is separate from the Mohameds’ challenge to the Authority to Proceed issued by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond in response to the United States’ extradition request.
The Caribbean Court of Justice dismissed that challenge on July 29 and lifted its interim stay, allowing the magistrate’s hearings to resume. The regional court unanimously dismissed the substantive appeal, although separate judgments were issued.
The Mohameds were arrested on October 31, 2025, following the US extradition request. Their committal proceedings began on January 6 this year.
They were sanctioned by the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control in June 2024 over alleged corruption and gold smuggling. They subsequently became the subject of an 11-count indictment in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida, including conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering, arising from an alleged scheme to evade more than US$50 million in taxes and royalties on gold exports from Guyana.
Discussion