Attorney General dismisses defence challenge to extradition proceedings

Attorney General Anil Nandlall

The High Court on Monday heard a challenge to Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act filed by lawyers representing U.S.-indicted businessman Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, seeking to halt ongoing extradition proceedings.
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, dismissed the application, describing it as a deliberate attempt to delay the extradition process.
The application challenges amendments made in 2009 to the Fugitive Offenders Act, which the defence argues are unconstitutional and infringe on the Mohameds’ fundamental rights. The lawyers are also requesting an order to stop extradition proceedings currently underway in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
The extradition matter is before Magistrate Judy Latchman. At a December 6 hearing, Magistrate Latchman ruled that the Fugitive Offenders Act, including the 2009 amendments, is constitutional and set January 6 for the commencement of evidentiary hearings.
Following that ruling, the defence approached the High Court for a determination from Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on the constitutionality of the amendments. They also sought a stay of the magistrate’s court proceedings pending the High Court’s decision.
During Monday’s hearing, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde argued on behalf of the Mohameds that continuing the extradition process while constitutional issues remain unresolved could unfairly prejudice his clients.
Forde contended that the laws underpinning the extradition are under active legal challenge and warned that proceeding at the magistrate level could result in the Mohameds losing their bail and being remanded to custody before the High Court rules. He further argued that this could trigger unnecessary legal actions, including potential habeas corpus applications, “which he said could be avoided if the constitutional questions are first settled.”
Acting Chief Justice Singh indicated that a ruling on the constitutional challenge could be delivered by Monday, January 5—one day before the evidentiary hearings are scheduled to begin. The matter was adjourned to 1:00 pm to allow the Attorney General, representing the state, to respond.
Speaking to the media, Nandlall rejected the defence’s application, characterising it as “another attempt to stall the extradition process.” He expressed confidence that the constitutional challenge would not succeed, noting that the issue had already been addressed by the magistrate.
The High Court heard arguments from the state later Monday, after which the defence will have an opportunity to respond. The outcome will determine whether the extradition proceedings continue as scheduled in the Magistrates’ Court.