Mohamed’s extradition case: CJ throws out constitutional challenge, clears path for matter to proceed

A pivotal High Court ruling on Tuesday has kept alive the possibility that Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, may soon be surrendered to US authorities to face federal charges, even as the Attorney General (AG) expressed serious concerns about what he described as prolonged and avoidable delays at the Magistrates’ Court level.

Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh issued a 26-page decision largely dismissing the constitutional challenges the Mohameds had mounted against key parts of the Fugitive Offenders Act, the law under which Guyana executes requests for extradition.

Justice Singh ruled that Sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b), and 8(3)(B)(c) of the Act are consistent with the Constitution but found Section 8(3)(B)(b) to be unconstitutional and therefore void.

The defendants had contended that the Act’s 2009 amendments breached fundamental constitutional rights, including judicial independence, personal liberty, fair hearing, and equality before the law, among others.

Their legal team argued that the role of the Minister in issuing an Authority to Proceed (ATP) improperly inserted executive influence into a judicial process.

However, the Chief Justice maintained that the statutory framework preserves judicial autonomy, emphasising that committal hearings are conducted by a Magistrate who independently assesses whether legal criteria for surrender to the requesting state have been met.

Reacting to the judgement, AG and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall told reporters that, in practical terms, the invalidated subsection does not halt the extradition process.
“We said that the section has no bearing, and it does not affect in any form or fashion any extradition proceedings in Guyana,” Nandlall said, underscoring that existing treaty safeguards and assurances by the United States guard against onwards surrender without Guyana’s consent.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, leading the defence team, described the ruling as a “mixed outcome” and signalled his intent to appeal the aspects the court did not grant.

“The Chief Justice ruled in favour of ourselves in relation to one order, which we believe is the main plank of the case,” Forde said, adding that the legal team will pursue challenges to the refused reliefs at the appellate level.

The case’s judicial twists unfold against months of extradition proceedings in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, where the United States is seeking the Mohameds’ surrender following a grand jury indictment in the Southern District of Florida.

The indictment alleges that from about 2017 through at least 2024, the two men engaged in a sophisticated fraud and tax-evasion scheme, concealing substantial quantities of gold to underpay Guyanese taxes and royalties, resulting in losses alleged to exceed US$50 million, and engaged in money laundering and bribery to facilitate these activities.

In his comments Tuesday, Nandlall decried what he described as tactical maneuvers to slow the committal hearing, which began in late October 2025 after the formal extradition request was transmitted by US authorities.

“What is even more telling is that the … extradition committal proceedings continue to languish … in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court,” the AG said, accusing defence counsel of deploying “fabricated medical explanations” and other narratives “to delay both from the lawyers as well as from the subjects.”

Under the Fugitive Offenders Act, he stressed, the Magistrate’s remit is limited to examining the indictment and supporting documents sent by the requesting state to determine whether they satisfy the legal test for committal.

“Extradition proceedings are not trials and should not expand into broader enquiries beyond the statutory framework,” Nandlall said, contrasting the Mohameds’ matter with a recent extradition case in which the defendant, Ronley Floyd Bynoe, accepted surrender without contesting the request.

After more than a month of testimony, the first witness, the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Legal Affairs, remains under cross-examination. The committal hearing is scheduled to resume on February 26, 2026, when the prosecution and defence will argue whether the matter should advance by way of a paper committal or a preliminary inquiry.