“BILATERAL assurances, I say, with the greatest of respect, obviously, carries greater force,” Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, told the Court of Appeal on Tuesday.

He made the argument while defending guarantees from the United States against the onward extradition of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, to a third country.

Nandlall argued that the assurances reinforce protections under the existing extradition treaty between the two countries and should be accepted by the appellate court, which has reserved its judgment in the Mohameds’ constitutional challenge to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act.

The court heard approximately three hours of legal submissions from the parties on Tuesday.

Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire, SC, along with Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan, forms the panel that must examine more than 2,000 pages of legal submissions and authorities before delivering its decision.

The chancellor reminded the parties of the court’s one-month deadline for issuing judgments and assured them that every effort would be made to reach a decision after the material had been reviewed. The parties will be notified when the ruling becomes available.

Nandlall argued that Article 7 of the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, which Guyana inherited upon gaining independence, provides safeguards governing the treatment and prosecution of individuals surrendered under the extradition arrangement.

ASSURANCES REINFORCE TREATY PROTECTIONS

He said the additional assurances were sought as a precaution and provided to the court once the issue arose in the proceedings.

The attorney general told the court that Washington had reaffirmed its obligations under the treaty and provided a specific guarantee that the Mohameds would not be transferred to a third country for an offence committed before their extradition without Guyana’s consent.

Nandlall quoted the assurance provided by the United States, which stated that it was not obliged to give the requested guarantee but, following Guyana’s request, would not re-extradite the two men to a third state without the consent of Guyana’s responsible minister.

He said: “While the United States is not, therefore, obliged to provide the assurance requested, in light of the Government of Guyana’s request, the United States assures the Government of Guyana that, in this particular case, it shall not re-extradite [the Mohameds] to a third state for any offence committed before their extradition without the consent of the Minister of Home Affairs of Guyana.”

He maintained that the guarantee did not constitute a separate arrangement outside the existing treaty framework.

“This assurance is nothing outside our extraneous. It’s part and parcel of the arrangement,” he submitted.

Nandlall also argued that the bilateral nature of the assurances gave them additional legal weight, pointing to judicial authorities in which unilateral assurances had been accepted.

“Bilateral assurances, I say, with the greatest of respect, obviously, carries greater force. But even unilateral assurances have been uniformly accepted. And we have the cases; I don’t think I need to go through them. They set out the principles governing unilateral assurance. And I say, Your Honours, that bilateral assurances will be accepted a fortiori.”

The Attorney General also challenged the Mohameds’ arguments that the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act were unconstitutional. He maintained that the appellants had failed to demonstrate clearly how the challenged provisions violated the constitution or infringed on their fundamental rights.

A key issue in the appeal concerns Section 8(3)(B)(a) and Section 8(3)(B)(b) of the legislation. Nandlall argued that Section 8(3)(B)(a) could remain valid despite the High Court’s decision to strike down Section 8(3)(B)(b), contending that the provisions were severable and that the invalidation of one did not automatically render the other unconstitutional.

In February 2026, Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh ruled that Section 8(3)(B)(b) was unconstitutional. The provision sought to deem a safeguard against onward extradition to exist within an extradition arrangement, even where it was not expressly provided for. However, the chief justice found that protection against onward extradition was implicit in Article 7 of the 1931 treaty.

HIGHLY ACADEMIC, NOT FOUNDED IN REALITY

Speaking with reporters outside the courthouse, Nandlall argued that the Mohameds’ concerns about being extradited to a third country were unfounded, pointing to both the provisions of the extradition treaty and written assurances obtained from the United States.

“So, the fear that the Mohameds have expressed do not exist. It’s not real. It’s not founded in reality. The treaty protects against it. And we have an assurance that addresses the provisions of the treaty. And that makes their case highly academic,” Nandlall noted.

He further contended that they had failed to demonstrate how the challenged legislation violated their constitutional rights, stating their legal team had not clearly identified the specific constitutional protections allegedly breached.

He said, “Repeatedly, this court asked [their lawyers], which one of the provisions in the constitution you are relying on? Which one of the rights provided for in the constitution to your clients are being breached?”

The attorney general maintained that the lawyers had failed to adequately explain their case, arguing that the constitution itself recognises extradition proceedings as an exception to certain rights, including liberty and freedom of movement.

Nandlall also challenged the appellants to identify a constitutional provision that specifically protects a person from being extradited to another country after an initial surrender, arguing that their case lacked the necessary legal foundation.

“If you can point where the constitution says that no Guyanese, once extradited to country A, cannot be extradited to country B, and that is a provision that the constitution guarantees you, that is a protection that the constitution guarantees you, then you have a case. They have abysmally failed to point that out,” he argued.

FORDE’S COUNTERARGUMENTS
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who represented the Mohameds, disputed that interpretation, arguing that the treaty does not expressly prohibit the transfer of an extradited person to a third country. “We respectfully submit that Article 7 regulates custody and trial in the receiving state. It contains no words about surrender to a third state,” Forde told the court.

He argued that the treaty restricts the offences for which a person may be held or tried in the receiving country, but does not establish a specific safeguard against onward extradition.

Forde also challenged the reliance on assurances obtained after the Mohameds had been taken into custody on October 31, 2025. He pointed out that the diplomatic notes containing the US assurances were dated December 2025.

Forde maintained that if the law requires an express provision against onward extradition, a subsequent assurance cannot replace that requirement. He urged the appellate court to distinguish between treaty protections limiting prosecution to specified offences and a separate legal safeguard requiring consent before a person can be transferred to another state.

Nazar Mohamed was the only one of the two men present in person at Tuesday’s Court of Appeal hearing, following his son Azruddin Mohamed’s arrest hours earlier in connection with a reported gunfire incident near the Kitty home of Special Branch Head Prem Narine.

BACKGROUND
The constitutional appeal is a challenge to the Chief Justice’s ruling and is separate from the extradition proceedings against the Mohameds before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. Those proceedings are scheduled to continue on October 21 and 22, but the magistrate remains barred from delivering a final decision until the constitutional challenge is resolved by the Court of Appeal.

The extradition case stems from a request by the United States for the surrender of the Mohameds to face an 11-count federal indictment.

U.S. prosecutors alleged that the two businessmen participated in a multi-year scheme involving the export of Guyanese gold using falsified customs declarations and reused government export seals, allegedly resulting in the evasion of more than US$50 million in taxes and royalties.

The United States also alleges that Azruddin Mohamed evaded more than US$1 million in taxes in connection with a Lamborghini imported into Guyana.

The indictment includes allegations of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and customs offences. The Mohameds have denied the allegations.
The father and son remain on $150,000 bail following their arrests. Their bail conditions include the surrender of their passports and weekly reporting to the Ruimveldt Police Station.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury sanctioned both men in 2024 over allegations linked to corruption and gold smuggling. They were subsequently indicted by prosecutors in 2025 on related charges in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.