Recent Posts
January 13, 2026- January 13, 2026
January 13, 2026
Attorney General and Senior Counsel Anil Nandlall on Tuesday criticised what he described as deliberate attempts to delay the extradition proceedings involving businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed, insisting that the filing of an appeal does not automatically halt the matter before the Magistrate’s Court.
Speaking in an interview, Nandlall said he was aware that counsel for the respondents had indicated that an appeal had been filed. However, he stressed that the appeal, by itself, does not operate as a stay of proceedings and should not prevent the magistrate from continuing with the committal hearing.
“These are attempts to delay the hearing and determination of the matter,” Nandlall said. He argued that the strategy to prolong the case had been publicly acknowledged by one of the respondents and later echoed by his legal team. “This is part and parcel of a plan to stretch this matter out,” he added.
The Attorney General pointed out that Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who represents the Mohameds, had himself acknowledged in public statements that the appeal does not act as a stay. Nandlall said this effectively confirmed that any expectation that the mere filing of an appeal would stop the proceedings was unfounded.
According to Nandlall, the legal issues now being raised on appeal had already been canvassed before the Magistrate’s Court and subsequently before the High Court. He noted that Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh had described those arguments as frivolous and vexatious when he refused an application to halt the extradition proceedings.
“To my mind, this is a classic case of abuse of process,” Nandlall said, adding that the courts had already pronounced on the very questions being raised again. He argued that repeatedly advancing the same issues at different stages amounted to going “around in a circle” and undermined the orderly administration of justice.
The Attorney General also addressed the challenge to amendments made to Guyana’s extradition laws in 2009, noting that those provisions had been applied for years and upheld by the courts. He said that many persons had been committed under the same legislation as recently as 2018, and that a High Court judge had previously examined and dismissed similar constitutional challenges.
“That is the state of the law,” Nandlall said. “Every judicial officer has a duty to apply it until it is changed or until a court pronounces otherwise.”
He explained that Guyana’s legal system operates according to a structured procedure, and that constitutional challenges to committal proceedings are properly addressed after those proceedings have concluded. If a court later determines that the law is unconstitutional, the committal order could then be quashed, providing the remedy sought.
“What is being attempted here is to turn the procedure upside down, putting what belongs at the end at the beginning,” Nandlall said. “The system cannot be restructured for one or two litigants. The law must apply equally to all,” he added.
The Attorney General reiterated that the magistrate is entitled to proceed unless restrained by a superior court. He noted that no stay had been granted and that no application seeking to prohibit the Magistrate’s Court from continuing had been filed.
“The mere filing of an appeal cannot bar the magistrate from proceeding. Only a specific order from a superior court can do that,” Nandlall said
On Monday, Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh refused an application by attorneys for Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed to stay the extradition proceedings while constitutional challenges to the extradition laws are heard in the High Court. In his ruling, Justice Singh held that the matter should proceed before the Magistrate’s Court despite the pending constitutional issues, making no order as to costs.
The decision cleared the way for the extradition hearing to begin on Tuesday before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman. Substantive arguments on the constitutional challenges are scheduled to be heard in the High Court on January 14, 2026.
