The High Court upheld three contested provisions of Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act as constitutional on Monday, clearing a crucial legal hurdle in the extradition proceedings against U.S.-indicted businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
In a 26-page written ruling, Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh found that Sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b), and 8(3)(B)(c) of the Act are consistent with the Constitution. However, the court declared Section 8(3)(B)(b) unconstitutional.
The constitutional challenge was initiated by the Mohameds, who contest the legality of several amendments to the Act under which they could be extradited to the United States. Notably, both men were absent from court when the decision was rendered, which was not read aloud but distributed in writing.
The Mohameds argued that four provisions of the Act violated their constitutional rights. The Chief Justice largely dismissed these arguments, rejecting three of the four challenges. The only provision struck down—Section 8(3)(B)(b)—pertained to the interpretation of extradition arrangements when certain protections are not explicitly stated in treaties or foreign law.
Outside the courtroom, Attorney General Anil Nandlall characterized the ruling as favorable to the State and an important step in advancing the extradition process. He noted that the court effectively dismissed most constitutional claims, leaving only one subsection, which he deemed to have no significant impact on the proceedings.
Nandlall explained that existing legal safeguards and assurances from the United States—that the Mohameds would not be extradited to a third country without the consent of Guyana—render the invalidated provision inconsequential. He also pointed to the extradition treaty, which prohibits onward extradition without authorization from Guyanese authorities.
In contrast, defense attorney Roysdale Forde disputed the Attorney General’s interpretation of the ruling. He emphasized that the struck-down section was a vital component of the defense’s constitutional arguments and deemed the ruling on that provision significant.
Forde suggested that the State might consider an appeal, though the Attorney General has not indicated any plans to pursue that route.
With three of the four contested sections upheld, the framework of the Fugitive Offenders Act remains intact. This ruling facilitates the continuance of extradition proceedings against Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed, unless further appeals are filed.
The extradition matter is scheduled to proceed on Thursday in the Magistrate’s Court, where committal proceedings will resume. Meanwhile, a separate judicial review application that was previously dismissed is now under appeal.
