Nazar Mohamed and his son, Leader of the Opposition Azruddin Mohamed, are asking the Guyana Court of Appeal to urgently halt their extradition committal proceedings, warning that allowing the case to proceed could result in their loss of liberty before the court determines their substantive constitutional appeal.
The application comes as the extradition proceedings before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman remain part-heard, with six further hearing dates scheduled for September 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
In a Notice of Motion filed by their attorney Roysdale Forde against the Attorney General of Guyana, the father and son are seeking a stay of the committal proceedings pending the determination of their appeal, which challenges aspects of Guyana’s extradition legislation.
They are also asking for an urgent hearing, directions for the preparation of the appeal record and, if necessary, an order suspending any extradition order that may subsequently be made while the appeal remains outstanding.
The Mohameds argue that allowing the committal proceedings to conclude before their appeal is heard could render any subsequent stay ineffective.
They contend that a committal order would have immediate consequences for their liberty because their existing bail would lapse upon committal.
According to their submissions, once a committal order is made, the Magistrate’s Court would have no further substantive role in the matter, meaning that a stay granted later by the Court of Appeal could not reverse the committal or restore the period of liberty lost.
The applicants therefore argue that the issue before the Court of Appeal is not merely whether they may ultimately be surrendered to the United States, but whether they could first be deprived of their liberty before the appellate court determines whether the statutory provisions governing their committal are constitutionally valid.
The application forms part of the Mohameds’ continuing legal challenge to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act, including amendments made to the legislation in 2009.
The father and son were arrested on October 31, 2025, following an extradition request from the United States. Their extradition proceedings began on January 6, 2026, before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrate’s Courts.
At the heart of their appeal are several constitutional questions concerning the operation of the Fugitive Offenders Act, including issues surrounding separation of powers, judicial independence, the constitutional right to liberty and the ability of the courts to scrutinise the exercise of coercive powers.
Central to the appeal is a February 24, 2026 ruling by the acting Chief Justice in constitutional proceedings involving the legislation.
The Chief Justice declared Section 8(3)(B)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act unconstitutional but upheld other provisions challenged by the Mohameds.
The two men have not appealed the declaration that Section 8(3)(B)(b) is unconstitutional. Instead, they are asking the Court of Appeal to affirm that finding while overturning other aspects of the February ruling.
Their attorneys argue that Section 8(3)(B)(a) cannot properly remain in force after paragraph (b) was declared unconstitutional, contending that both provisions formed part of a single legislative mechanism.
According to their submissions, paragraph (a) permits committal and extradition in circumstances where the applicable law or treaty does not contain a particular safeguard, while paragraph (b) provided that the safeguard should nevertheless be treated as implied.
The Mohameds argue that once paragraph (b) was struck down, paragraph (a) lost the legislative basis on which it was intended to operate.
They have also challenged Section 8(3)(B)(c), arguing that it restricts the ability of persons facing extradition to challenge alleged breaches of statutory requirements and therefore amounts to an unconstitutional ouster of the court’s jurisdiction.
Another issue raised in the appeal concerns the arrangements and safeguards governing extradition between Guyana and the United States, including protections relating to possible onward extradition to another country.
The applicants maintain that these matters are subject to judicial determination and argue that statutory provisions cannot prevent the courts from examining whether the legal requirements for exercising extradition powers have been satisfied.
The Mohameds further contend that the constitutional issues raised in their appeal are serious and that the balance of convenience favours preserving the status quo until those questions are determined.
They argue that any delay caused by a stay could be addressed by an expedited hearing, while a loss of liberty following committal could not be adequately remedied after the fact.
The applicants have undertaken to pursue the appeal expeditiously, comply with any timetable imposed by the Court of Appeal and refrain from taking steps intended to delay the proceedings.
They have also pointed to the Caribbean Court of Justice’s (CCJ) previous intervention in the matter. The CCJ granted an interim stay of the extradition proceedings in March while related proceedings were pending, but that stay was discharged on July 29 following the court’s decision.
The Mohameds are now seeking similar interim protection from the Court of Appeal while their substantive constitutional appeal is determined.
With the Magistrate’s Court proceedings scheduled to resume next week, the Court of Appeal is being asked to intervene before the committal proceedings advance to a stage that, according to the applicants, could have irreversible consequences for their liberty.
Discussion