Legal experts say it’s clear under international law that the country requesting extradition is responsible for paying the costs. This principle is codified in the 1931 U.S.–U.K. Extradition Treaty, still in force in Guyana, which states at Article 13:
“All expenses connected with the extradition shall be borne by the High Contracting Party making the application.”
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) confirms the meaning in modern terms. It defines “States Parties” or “Contracting States” as the countries bound by a treaty.
A “contracting state” that initiates treaty-based action—such as an extradition request—is the state making the application. In simple English, this means the United States, not Guyana, must pay for the Mohameds’ extradition.
Yet Guyana’s Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, S.C., has repeatedly misled the public, claiming the U.S. had a say in the hiring of the overseas legal team representing the government. On November 10, speaking with the state-owned National Communication Network (NCN), he said:
U.S. was consulted on the matter, the country had a say in who will represent its interest, and the overseas legal team was brought in with the “approval” of the US authority.
Two days later, the U.S. Embassy directly contradicted him:
“The attorneys appearing in the Guyanese extradition proceedings of Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed are NOT retained by the U.S. government. They are retained by the Guyanese government and are advocating for the extradition … pursuant to the U.S. extradition request.”
This is not a minor misstatement. Guyana hired a Jamaican legal team, including a Guyanese lawyer, at a cost of US $62,558.78 for October alone, with more monthly fees expected should the proceedings continue. All of this, experts note, should have been borne by the United States, yet Guyanese taxpayers are footing the bill.
The case stems from a recent indictment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, charging Nazar “Shell” Mohamed and his son Azruddin Mohamed with wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and customs violations connected to an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme.
According to the unsealed document between 2017 and 2024, the Mohameds allegedly defrauded the Government of Guyana by evading export taxes on over 10,000 kg of gold, including a shipment valued at US$5.3 million seized at Miami International Airport.
Over the past two months, the AG’s statements have been riddled with inconsistencies. In October, he claimed:
“Once that request is made, a process which is outlined both in the Fugitive Offenders Act is triggered, and a series of legal steps have to be followed, all of which are outlined in the legislation.”
In early November, he asserted:
“The government is duty-bound to its treaty obligations and international law to accept extradition requests … the extradition request came from the United States … Guyana has no influence over the [US] administration.”
Meanwhile, the Guyana government has refused to launch any local investigation into the alleged gold smuggling, even as President Ali announced zero tolerance for such behavior, raising questions about whether taxpayer money is being used to pursue a politically sensitive extradition while ignoring domestic accountability.
Critics argue the continuous contradictions and “white lies” by Nandlall undermine public trust, the rule of law, and the government’s credibility, leaving citizens to wonder whether the extradition is being treated as a political spectacle rather than a legal obligation.
See below the full release issued by the Attorney General’s Chambers:
November 12, 2025: Reference is made to a front page headline of today’s Stabroek News that reads “Extradition treaty says requesting party must pay their expenses.” The accompanying article, contained on page 9 of the newspapers, quotes Article 13 of the governing treaty between the United States of America and Guyana. Article 13 reads “all expenses connected with the extradition shall be borne by the high contracting party making the application.” This article has always been interpreted to mean, and the resultant practice is, that the requesting state (USA) will bear the “expenses associated with the extradition”, not the process leading to the extradition.
The extradition takes place after a decision is made to extradite, and the “expenses connected with the extradition” are the expenses incurred in extraditing, for example, transporting the extradited persons to the place of trial, in this case, the United States of America. These expenses are borne by the USA. The costs associated with the process leading to the extradition, including, providing legal representation, are and have always been borne by Guyana. Our legislation have been interpreted in recognition of this practice. This practice is confirmed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who has held that office for over two decades and participated in dozens of extradition processes.
For example, when the Government of Guyana requested the extradition of Marcus Bisram from the United States, the US Government provided legal services for the proceedings that took place in the US. When the decision was made to extradite, the Government of Guyana paid for Bisram’s transportation to Guyana.
Several Caribbean jurisdictions were consulted, and they confirm that similar practices obtain in their respective jurisdictions.
Why would the Stabroek News, an important mainstream media, want to engage in such forays that distract from an international engagement between two countries cooperating to bring fugitives across international frontiers to justice, is a question only they can answer.
This statement is intended to settle the public record on this issue.
