–AG defends US assurances in Mohameds’ Extradition Case

-by Kimberly Giddings

The Court of Appeal has reserved its ruling on a constitutional challenge brought by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, in connection with their extradition proceedings.

Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, SC, said the court must review more than 2,000 pages of legal submissions and authorities before delivering its decision.

During today’s hearing, Attorney General Anil Nandlall defended the legality of assurances provided by the United States in the extradition proceedings, arguing that the existing treaty already protects against onward extradition.

Nandlall maintained that Article Seven of the 1931 extradition treaty provides safeguards against transferring the Mohameds’ to a third country without Guyana’s consent.

“In addition to satisfying the fears expressed by the Mohamed’s, the government of Guyana did something more. We got the US to confirm in writing in the form of a diplomatic force, that they will not extradite the 2 Mohamed’s, should they be extradited, they will not re-extradite them to a third state. So the fear that the Mohamed’s have expressed do not exist. It is not real,” he said.

Nandlall also argued that the constitutional provisions cited by defence attorney, Roysdale Forde,recognize extradition as an exception to certain fundamental rights, challenging the basis of the Mohamed’s’ constitutional challenge.

He said even the court didn’t understand Forde’s argument.

“In this court, he has a completely different position. And even in the position before this court, it’s unclear. You see, if you are challenging a legislation, what can only challenge a legislation on the ground that it is unconstitutional. One that means is that it is inconsistent with a provision of the constitution or the impact of the legislation can have an unconstitutional effect on the rights of the citizens,” the AG explained.

The appeal stems from a February 2026 High Court ruling by Acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, who struck down a provision of the Fugitive Offenders Act but found that protection against onward extradition was implicit in the treaty. The constitutional challenge is separate from the ongoing extradition proceedings before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where a final determination remains on hold pending the appeal’s resolution.