By Mark DaCosta- The essence of Guyana’s extradition law lies in its attempt to balance international obligations with constitutional safeguards. Rooted in inherited treaties and modernised through legislative amendments, the law is designed to ensure fugitives cannot evade justice by hiding within our borders. Yet, recent cases involving prominent businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed have exposed how the system can be manipulated by political actors, particularly under the PPP government, raising questions about whether extradition is being used as a tool of justice or as a weapon of political convenience.
Extradition, in its purest form, is a mechanism of international cooperation. It allows one state to surrender an individual to another for prosecution or punishment. Globally, the principles are clear: the alleged crime must be recognised in both jurisdictions, the accused can only be tried for the offences listed in the request, and political offences are excluded to prevent persecution. Some nations refuse to extradite their own citizens, but our country has generally not adopted that stance. These principles are meant to protect individuals from abuse while ensuring accountability across borders.
In our nation, the Fugitive Offenders Act (Cap. 10:04) provides the framework for extradition. It applies to Commonwealth countries and treaty partners, with Guyana still bound by treaties inherited from Britain, including the 1931 UK–US Extradition Treaty. This treaty remains the legal foundation for extradition requests from Washington. The PPP government, however, has sought to expand its reach through amendments. In July 2024, Parliament passed changes to the Act, claiming to modernise the process. These amendments widened the scope of admissible evidence, allowing records and statements to be used in hearings, and gave the Minister of Home Affairs the power to “read in” protections to outdated treaties. While presented as a safeguard, this effectively hands the executive branch greater discretion, raising concerns about political interference.
The extradition process itself is layered. Requests arrive through diplomatic channels and are reviewed by the Minister of Home Affairs, who decides whether the offence qualifies. If satisfied, the Minister issues an Authority to Proceed, sending the matter to the Magistrates’ Court. The magistrate does not determine guilt but assesses whether a prima facie case exists — whether the evidence would justify a trial if the crime had been committed here.
If the magistrate commits the individual, the accused may challenge the decision in the High Court through habeas corpus. Ultimately, however, the Minister retains the final say, with the power to block extradition if it is deemed unjust, oppressive, or politically motivated. This dual structure — judicial review followed by executive discretion — was intended to protect rights, but under the PPP it has become a mechanism for selective enforcement.
The risks for those facing extradition are considerable. Assets can be frozen, bail is rarely granted, and individuals may face harsher sentences abroad than they would at home. While the principle of specialty prevents new charges from being added once extradition is granted, it does not shield against severe penalties such as life imprisonment or the death penalty. The PPP government insists these safeguards are adequate, but critics argue that the concentration of power in the hands of the Minister undermines judicial independence and opens the door to abuse.
The case of Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed illustrates these tensions. Indicted in the United States, they were arrested in October 2025 after the Minister issued an Authority to Proceed. They challenged the constitutionality of the Fugitive Offenders Act, arguing that the amendments violated natural justice. Their lawyers contended that the changes gave the executive excessive power and eroded the rights of the accused. The High Court rejected their application for a stay, allowing extradition proceedings to continue. This ruling demonstrates how the judiciary has been reluctant to confront the government’s overreach, leaving individuals vulnerable to political manoeuvring.
The PPP has framed these developments as evidence of its commitment to international cooperation. Yet, many observers see them as part of a broader pattern of using legal instruments to silence opponents and consolidate power. The ability of the Minister to block or advance extradition based on political considerations is deeply troubling. It creates the perception that justice is not blind but subject to partisan interests. In a country where institutions are already under strain, this undermines public trust and raises questions about sovereignty. Are we truly acting in the interest of justice, or are we bending to external pressures while allowing the government to pick and choose who faces extradition?
The broader implications are clear. Extradition in our nation is not automatic; it is a process shaped by diplomacy, judicial scrutiny, and political judgment. The 2024 amendments, while presented as reforms, have tilted the balance towards executive control. The Mohamed case highlights how this can be used to target individuals selectively, raising fears that the law is being weaponised. For a country that prides itself on independence and justice, this is a dangerous path. The PPP’s approach risks turning extradition from a neutral legal process into a political instrument, eroding both constitutional safeguards and national sovereignty.
Extradition law in Guyana is meant to ensure accountability across borders while protecting individual rights. Yet, under the PPP government, it has become entangled with politics, undermining its credibility. The amendments of 2024, coupled with the handling of the Mohamed case, reveal a troubling trend: the law is being reshaped not to strengthen justice, but to serve political ends. For our nation, the challenge is clear. We must reclaim extradition as a tool of justice, not allow it to become another weapon in the PPP’s arsenal of control.
