Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde and Senior Counsel Anil Nandlall, Attorney General, have advanced competing arguments over whether the country’s extradition arrangements adequately protect the constitutional rights of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed. The Court of Appeal must now determine whether the treaty provisions and diplomatic assurances relied upon by the Government satisfy Guyana’s constitutional requirements.
At the centre of the challenge is a fundamental legal question: can an extradition treaty or diplomatic assurance satisfy the law if the protections it offers are alleged to fall short of Guyana’s constitutional requirements?
Forde argues that the Government cannot rely on diplomatic assurances from the United States to overcome what he considers a deficiency in the extradition framework. Nandlall maintains that the existing treaty arrangements and Washington’s written assurances provide adequate protection against the Mohameds being transferred to a third country without Guyana’s consent.
The Court of Appeal heard approximately three hours of submissions on Tuesday, October 13, before reserving its decision. Acting Chancellor Roxane George-Wiltshire indicated that the judges would need time to review more than 2,000 pages of documents and legal authorities. The court indicated that it could take up to one month to deliver its ruling, although no specific date was announced.
Forde challenges the treaty safeguards
Representing the Mohameds alongside attorney Damien DaSilva, Forde challenged the Government’s reliance on the 1931 extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, which Guyana inherited at independence.
He argued that the treaty’s provisions governing custody and trial in the receiving country do not expressly address the subsequent transfer of an extradited person to another state.
“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 argued.
Forde also questioned whether assurances obtained from Washington in December 2025 could remedy the alleged deficiency, noting that they were issued after the Mohameds were taken into custody on October 31, 2025.
The defence maintains that where the law requires protection against onward extradition, a subsequent diplomatic assurance cannot simply substitute for safeguards required by the applicable legal framework. The constitutional challenge also raises concerns about personal liberty, freedom of movement and protection of the law.
Constitution versus treaty obligations
The dispute brings constitutional supremacy into focus. Article 8 of Guyana’s Constitution establishes the Constitution as the supreme law and provides that any other law inconsistent with it is void to the extent of the inconsistency.
That principle means that an international treaty cannot, merely by virtue of its existence, override constitutional requirements within Guyana’s domestic legal system. The court must nevertheless determine whether the treaty provisions and diplomatic assurances in this case actually conflict with any constitutionally protected right.
Forde’s challenge places that question at the centre of the appeal: whether the safeguards relied upon by the Government adequately meet constitutional standards or whether the extradition framework fails to provide the protection required by law.
Nandlall rejects the defence’s interpretation, arguing that the treaty and the United States’ written assurances provide sufficient protection. He said Washington had assured Guyana that the Mohameds would not be re-extradited to a third country for an offence committed before their extradition without the consent of Guyana’s Minister of Home Affairs.
The Attorney General maintains that the assurance reinforces the existing treaty arrangements and that the defence has not adequately demonstrated a violation of specific constitutional rights. He characterised the challenge as highly academic and disconnected from the legal realities of the case.
Ruling will shape next stage
The appeal follows a February 2026 decision by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who struck down one provision of the Fugitive Offenders Act but found that protection against onward extradition was implicit in the treaty. The Mohameds subsequently challenged aspects of that ruling.
The Court of Appeal’s decision will determine the constitutional issues before it, but will not itself decide whether the two men should ultimately be extradited to the United States.
The extradition proceedings before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman are scheduled to continue on October 21 and 22. However, the magistrate remains barred from delivering a final decision until the appellate court resolves the constitutional challenge.
The United States is seeking the Mohameds’ extradition to face federal charges, including alleged wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering linked to their gold-trading business. The allegations have not been determined at trial.
With more than 2,000 pages of submissions to consider, the Court of Appeal must now determine whether the treaty and diplomatic assurances satisfy the applicable legal requirements and whether the protections relied upon by the Government withstand the constitutional challenge. The judges have not indicated how they are likely to rule.
