The High Court on Monday upheld three contested provisions of Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act as constitutional, clearing a significant legal hurdle in the extradition proceedings against US-indicted businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed.
In a 26-page written ruling, Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh found that Section 8(3)(A)(a), Section 8(3)(A)(b), and Section 8(3)(B)(c) of the Act are not inconsistent with the Constitution. However, the court declared Section 8(3)(B)(b) unconstitutional.
The constitutional challenge was brought by the Mohameds, who are contesting the legality of several amendments to the Act under which they face possible extradition to the United States. Both men were not present in court for the decision, which was not read in full but distributed in writing to the parties.
The applicants had argued that four provisions of the Act violated constitutional protections. The Chief Justice rejected the majority of those arguments, dismissing the challenge in relation to three of the four sections.
The only provision struck down—Section 8(3)(B)(b)—dealt with the interpretation of extradition arrangements where certain protections may not be expressly stated in a treaty or foreign law.
Outside the courtroom, Attorney General Anil Nandlall described the ruling as largely favourable to the State and said it allows the extradition process to continue.
He stated that the court “essentially dismissed” the constitutional claims, with the exception of one subsection which, he argued, has no practical impact on the extradition proceedings.
According to Nandlall, existing legal safeguards and undertakings provided by the United States, specifically that the Mohameds would not be extradited onward to a third country without Guyana’s consent, render the invalidated section inconsequential.
Nandlall further pointed to provisions within the extradition treaty itself that prohibit onward extradition without authorisation from the Guyanese authorities.
Attorney Roysdale Forde, who leads the defence team, disagreed with the Attorney General’s characterisation of the outcome. He maintained that the section struck down was a central plank of the defence’s constitutional arguments and said the ruling on that provision was significant.
Forde suggested that the State may consider its own appeal, although the Attorney General has not indicated any such intention.
With three of the four challenged sections upheld, the framework of the Fugitive Offenders Act remains intact. The ruling allows the extradition proceedings against Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed to move forward, subject to any appeals that may be filed.
The extradition matter is set to continue on Thursday in the Magistrate’s Court, where the committal proceedings will resume, while a separate judicial review application that was previously dismissed is now the subject of an appeal.
The post High Court upholds key provisions of Fugitive Offenders Act in Mohameds’ constitutional challenge appeared first on News Room Guyana.
