Court dismisses key challenges in Mohameds’ case

Feb 25, 2026 News

…extradition proceedings to continue

(Kaieteur News) Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on Tuesday dismissed several constitutional challenges posed by Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, concerning the Fugitive Offenders’ Act.

Court dismisses key challenges in Mohameds’ case

Father and Son, Nazar (left) and Azruddin Mohamed

While the court upheld most sections of the law, it ruled one provision unconstitutional, leading to the continuation of the extradition process.

The Mohamed family’s legal team, which include Roysdale Forde SC, Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva, filed a constitutional motion on January 15, 2025, challenging the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act. The defence argued that the amendments, particularly sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b), 8(3)(B)(a), and 8(3)(B)(b), were unconstitutional and violated several rights, including: Article 122A (judicial independence); Article 139 (personal liberty); Article 144 (fair hearing); Article 148 (freedom of movement); Article 149D (equality before the law); and Article 40 (fundamental rights protections). They also raised concerns over the lack of safeguards against onward extradition in the 1931 Extradition Treaty between Guyana and the United States.

However, the legal challenge faced an initial setback when Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman rejected their request to refer the matter to the High Court, calling it frivolous and vexatious. Despite this, the applicants pursued the case in the High Court.

In a 26-page ruling, Justice Singh declared section 8(3)(B)(b) of the Act unconstitutional, stating it was inconsistent with the Constitution of Guyana and therefore void. This section, which deals with the potential extradition of individuals to a third state, was found to conflict with the constitutional protections of the country.

However, Justice Singh upheld the constitutionality of the remaining challenged provisions, sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b), 8(3)(B)(a), and 8(3)(B)(c). The court concluded that these provisions were consistent with the constitution and did not violate any fundamental rights.

The court’s decision also emphasised that the minister’s role in the extradition process does not interfere with judicial independence. The Fugitive Offenders Act clearly stipulates that the committal proceedings must be conducted by a magistrate, and the minister’s involvement is limited to issuing the Authority to Proceed (ATP) before judicial proceedings commence.
In response to the ruling, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall SC downplayed the significance of the section declared unconstitutional. He stated, “ We said that the section has no bearing and it does not affect in any form or fashion, any extradition proceedings in Guyana.”

On the other hand, defence lawyer Roysdale Forde expressed mixed reactions, noting that while the Chief Justice ruled in their favour on the crucial provision regarding the minister’s role in the law, the other challenges were dismissed. Forde indicated that the defence would likely file an appeal concerning the parts of the ruling they disagreed with.

“The Chief Justice this morning ruled in favour of ourselves in relation to one order, which we believe is the main plank of the case that we brought before the court, which dealt with the provision that requires the minister and the courts to read in a certain section into the law. We believe that the Chief Justice was correct in that he ruled in relation to the other orders that we sought, he would have dismissed them. We would most likely be filing an appeal to those reliefs that he did not grant,” he said.

Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed are currently facing federal charges in Miami, Florida, in connection with an alleged multi-million-dollar fraud and money-laundering scheme involving gold exports, customs fraud, bribery, and tax evasion. Following a request from the United States, Minister Walrond signed the ATP, which enables the extradition proceedings to proceed before the Magistrates’ Court. Should sufficient evidence be presented, the magistrate may approve their extradition to face charges in the U.S.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

court, extradition, Extradition Treaty, Mohameds, Opposition Leader, United States

Latest News