– State argues appeal will not be rendered nugatory if Magistrate proceeds

ATTORNEY General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall SC has urged the Court of Appeal to reject an application by Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed to halt their ongoing extradition committal proceedings, arguing that the men’s constitutional appeal will remain effective even if the matter continues before the Magistrate.
In written submissions filed on behalf of the State on Wednesday, the Attorney General contends that the extradition inquiry is part-heard and is scheduled to resume in the first week of September. The respondents are opposing a stay of the proceedings but say they do not object to the constitutional appeal being heard expeditiously.
The application follows a February 24 ruling by Chief Justice Roxane George, who declared Section 8(3B)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act unconstitutional while upholding the remaining challenged provisions. The Mohameds are appealing that decision and have sought to stay the committal proceedings pending the outcome of the appeal.
However, the State argues that the filing of an appeal does not automatically suspend proceedings and that a stay should be granted only in exceptional circumstances. It maintains that the applicants must show that their appeal has a good or arguable prospect of success, that continuing the proceedings would render the appeal nugatory or cause irreparable prejudice, and that the balance of justice and public interest favour a further interruption of the extradition process.
According to the submissions, the State’s central argument is that a decision by the Magistrate to proceed with the committal hearing would not amount to the men’s immediate surrender to the requesting state.
The Attorney General’s legal team argues that the Fugitive Offenders Act preserves avenues for habeas corpus, appellate review and applications for bail. Even if the men are committed, the State contends, surrender cannot occur immediately while the available statutory remedies are being pursued.
The submissions further argue that the challenged amendments are not necessary for the committal proceedings to continue. The State relies on the Court of Appeal’s decision in King v Director of Prisons, which it says established that Article 7 of the extradition treaty provides the required protection against onward extradition to a third country without the consent of the responsible minister.
The Attorney General also points to a diplomatic assurance from the United States, dated December 5, 2025, in which the requesting state confirmed that neither of the Mohameds would be re-extradited to a third state for an offence committed before extradition without the required consent.
The State argues that even if the appeal ultimately succeeds and the remaining challenged amendments are struck down, the legal protection provided under Article 7 would remain in place and the Magistrate would not be deprived of a lawful basis to continue the committal proceedings.
On the issue of prejudice, the Attorney General’s submissions acknowledge that custody following a committal order would be serious but argue that such an outcome is not inevitable. The Magistrate could discharge the appellants, while any future committal would be subject to further statutory safeguards and legal remedies, including the possibility of bail.
The State also contends that public interest considerations weigh heavily against another delay, arguing that the committal inquiry has already been interrupted by constitutional challenges, appeals and interim stays.
A further stay, it argues, would delay the Magistrate’s determination of whether the evidential requirements for committal have been met and would further postpone Guyana’s response to what the Attorney General describes as a subsisting treaty request. The men, who remain on bail, would still retain the right to challenge every element of the committal case before the Magistrate.
The State is therefore asking the Court of Appeal to refuse the stay of the committal proceedings, reject the proposed stay of any future committal order and decline the request for the current motion to be treated as the substantive appeal.
While opposing a stay, the Attorney General’s legal team says it supports the Court setting a prompt and fair timetable for the appeal, arguing that this would address any genuine urgency without causing further interruption to the part-heard extradition proceedings.