A High Court decision striking down a provision of Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act as unconstitutional has been welcomed by the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, which on Tuesday issued a statement addressing the ruling in relation to its leader and Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, both of whom are contesting extradition proceedings to the United States.
According to the WIN release, acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh ruled on February 24, 2026, that section 8(3B)(b) of the Act is unconstitutional because it improperly directs how courts must interpret treaty obligations. In his judgment, the Chief Justice stated: “The provision compels decision-makers to act on a legal fiction. It compels Courts to disregard the absence of a real and enforceable safeguard and to assume the existence of a protection that does not, in law or fact, bind the requesting state.”
Justice Singh emphasised that the Constitution protects judicial independence and the separation of powers, noting that while Parliament may legislate domestic consequences of treaties, it cannot dictate how courts interpret them. He ruled that section 8(3B)(b) “does not merely alter domestic rights and obligations” but commands courts and the executive to construe a treaty as containing provisions it does not include.
“Section 8 (3B) (b) crosses a constitutional line. Parliament cannot command Courts to declare a Treaty to mean what it does not mean since that is an intrusion into the judicature’s constitutional function,” the Chief Justice said, concluding that the provision is inconsistent with the Constitution and therefore unconstitutional.
The WIN statement said the ruling supports arguments advanced by attorneys for the Mohameds since October 2025 before Magistrate Judy Latchman, who had previously characterised the submissions as “frivolous and vexatious.” Justice Singh, however, granted the order sought by the Mohameds and declared the provision unconstitutional.
The Mohameds are represented in the extradition and related constitutional proceedings by a legal team comprising **Roysdale Forde, SC, Siand Dhurjon and Bernard DaSilva, who have advanced arguments challenging the legality and constitutionality of aspects of the Fugitive Offenders Act.
While the court upheld much of the challenge, it rejected arguments against other sections of the Act. Section 8(3A)(a), which was argued to allow the Minister to bypass the courts and order extradition, was interpreted as applying to the period prior to the issuance of an Authority to Proceed (ATP). The Chief Justice said the provision authorises the Minister to issue an ATP after receiving an extradition request.
The court also declined to rely on the Full Court decision in the Barry Dataram case. Justice Singh stated that “quite frankly the reasoning [of the Full Court] appears to have been shaped to reach a predetermined conclusion, [as opposed to] the conclusion emerging from principled analysis of the Court of Appeal.” He further described it as “unacceptably improper” for the Full Court to evade the doctrine of stare decisis by re-characterising a legal determination as a finding of fact, concluding that the ruling could not properly stand or bind his court.
According to the WIN release, counsel for the Mohameds intend to appeal aspects of the judgment and will seek an urgent hearing.
The case forms part of ongoing extradition proceedings involving the Mohameds, with the WIN party maintaining that the constitutional issues raised are central to the legal challenge now before the courts.
