Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, has robustly defended the ongoing extradition proceedings against businessmen Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed, describing recent criticisms as a deliberate distortion of Guyana’s extradition laws. Nandlall’s remarks came amid public debate following the commencement of the committal hearing at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday.
Nandlall urged critics to closely review the Fugitive Offenders Act, emphasizing that misinterpretations have arisen regarding what constitutes an extraditable offense. “The law defines what an extraditable offence is, and the public is being misled,” he stated, encouraging a careful reading of Section Five.
He explained that an offense may qualify for extradition if it constitutes an offense under Guyanese law and is punishable by at least two years in prison. Notably, there is no requirement for the foreign offence to be an “equivalent” offense in local law. “There is no such thing as an ‘equivalent offence’ requirement,” he insisted.
Citing allegations from a U.S. indictment involving money laundering and fraud, Nandlall argued that the factual conduct described, such as the non-disclosure of exported gold’s true value, would be criminal offenses under Guyanese law. “If you don’t declare the true value of goods for customs purposes, is that not an offence?” he challenged.
Nandlall also addressed critiques regarding conspiracy charges, affirming that the Act explicitly includes attempts and conspiracies as extraditable offenses. “Each extraditable offence is deemed to include attempting or conspiring to commit that offence,” he remarked, deeming opposing claims as legally indefensible.
Responding to criticisms that the prosecution did not outline corresponding Guyanese offences before the hearing, he clarified that the committal court must determine extraditability after evidence is presented. “The magistrate must be satisfied after hearing the evidence that the offence is extraditable,” he explained.
Further defending the nature of extradition hearings, Nandlall reiterated that these are not traditional criminal trials but rather committal hearings conducted primarily through paper-based processes. He noted that extradition proceedings are established practices, warning that complaints often reflect a lack of familiarity with the law.
Nandlall also condemned defense lawyers for allegedly undermining public confidence in the justice system when they fail to secure favorable outcomes. “When they are not getting their way, they accuse the courts of bias,” he stated, asserting that such actions are misleading and detrimental to the administration of justice.
As legal proceedings against the Mohameds advance, with key diplomatic documents and prosecutorial witness testimony already presented, the magistrate’s determination will ultimately rest on whether the alleged conduct meets the legal criteria for extradition under Guyanese law. Nandlall cautioned against attempts to stall the proceedings through overlapping legal challenges, emphasizing that the courts have a duty to prevent abuse of process.
