Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on Tuesday declared Section 8(3)(B)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act unconstitutional, while upholding the remaining challenged amendments to the extradition law.
The ruling was delivered in a constitutional challenge brought by businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed, who is also Leader of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party and the parliamentary Opposition. The two are contesting their extradition to the United States.
In their High Court filings, the Mohameds mounted a constitutional application arguing that several amendments to Guyana’s extradition framework were inconsistent with the Constitution of Guyana. Their legal action targeted Sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b), 8(3)(B)(b) and 8(3)(B)(c), contending that the provisions, as amended, violated constitutional protections and improperly empowered executive authority over judicial processes in extradition matters.
The constitutional challenge was lodged after the United States transmitted a formal extradition request and committal proceedings began in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court under the Act. The applicants argued that the statutory regime enabling extradition — particularly the interpretive directions embedded in the contested sections — was unlawful and breached constitutional safeguards, including the doctrine of separation of powers.
In a written judgment issued February 24, 2026, Justice Singh found that Sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b) and 8(3)(B)(c) are not inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore remain in force. However, he struck down Section 8(3)(B)(b).
The problem
The invalidated subsection provided that where a foreign law or extradition treaty does not contain a required provision under the Act, that law or treaty shall, “by necessary implication be read and construed by the Minister, Magistrate, High Court, Full Court and Court of Appeal as if the provision was incorporated into the law or treaty.”
The language in Section 8(3)(B)(b) of Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act — requiring that where an extradition treaty or foreign law does not contain a required provision it “shall, by necessary implication, be read and construed by the Minister, Magistrate, High Court, Full Court and Court of Appeal as if the provision was incorporated into the law or treaty” — was not part of the original 1988 statute. It was inserted by Parliament in 2009 as part of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009.
The Amendment Act was passed by the National Assembly on October 22, 2009 and assented to and gazetted later that year, formally altering Section 8 of the principal Act to include subsections (3A) and (3B), including the contested paragraph (b) of (3B).
In other words, the challenged interpretive instruction that Parliament sought to give to courts and the Executive was introduced into Guyana’s extradition law nearly 17 years ago, well after the original enactment of the Fugitive Offenders Act in 1988.
Court’s interpretation
Justice Singh held that the Section 8(3)(B)(b) requirement impermissibly directed both the Judiciary and the Executive to interpret treaties or foreign laws as containing provisions that are not expressly included. While Parliament has authority to legislate in the area of extradition, the court found that it cannot mandate how courts must construe international agreements beyond their text, determining that the subsection amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion into the judicial function.
The decision leaves the remainder of the challenged amendments intact and allows extradition proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court to continue, subject to any appeal.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall described the ruling as largely favorable to the State, noting that the struck-down subsection does not materially affect the ongoing proceedings. Counsel for the applicants, Roysdale Forde S.C, welcomed the court’s finding on the invalidated provision and indicated that an appeal would be considered regarding the sections that were upheld.
