Court of Appeal to Hear Mohamed Extradition Appeal, Directions Expected

Guyana's Court of Appeal will issue directions in the extradition appeal of Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed. The pair face US indictment and committal proceedings in Georgetown.

Mohamed Extradition Appeal Reaches Court of Appeal for Directions

Guyana's Court of Appeal is set to issue a series of orders and directions for the hearing of an urgent extradition appeal filed by Leader of the Opposition Azruddin Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed, Kaieteur News reports. The legal action, registered under Appeal No. 2025/1163-HC-FDA-DEM-CIV/APL-CIV-25/2026, challenges specific sections of a high court ruling on the constitutionality of the Fugitive Offenders Act.

Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary, Justice Roxane George, announced the forthcoming directions in court on Wednesday, following oral arguments on a new motion brought by the father and son. Both men have been indicted in the United States and are currently subject to extradition committal proceedings — Case Jackets Nos. 4716 and 4717 of 2025 — before the Georgetown Magistrates' Court.

Legal Team Frames the Scope of the Application

The Mohameds are represented by Roysdale Forde, SC, appearing alongside Rajiv Persad, SC, Siand Dhurjon, and Damain De Silva. Their written submissions were filed under a Notice of Motion dated 18th March 2026, and prayer 4(f) of their amended notice of appeal dated 20th August 2026.

Counsel was precise in framing the purpose of the application to the appellate court: "The court is not asked to decide the appeal. It is asked to ensure that the appeal, and the appellants' liberty, survive to the date on which it is decided."

Under prayer 4(a), the Mohameds seek the setting aside of the decision of the Chief Justice (ag) dated 24th February 2026 — except for the determination that Section 8(3B)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act is unconstitutional, which they explicitly do not appeal and ask the court to affirm.

Argument for a Stay of Committal Proceedings

On the question of jurisdiction governing an application to stay committal proceedings pending appeal, counsel submitted that the threshold falls under the court's constitutional and inherent jurisdiction. The defence cited Lord Goff's rejection of any rigid rule requiring a strong prima facie case of invalidity, holding that "the matter is one for the discretion of the court, taking into account all the circumstances of the case."

Counsel also drew on Lords Bridge and Jauncey in Films Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1987] 1 WLR 670, arguing the court must take the path that carries the lower risk of injustice. Applied to this case, the defence argued: "If a stay is refused and the Appeal succeeds, the Appellants will have been imprisoned under provisions declared void, and no order of any court can restore that period of liberty. If a stay is granted and the Appeal fails, the Respondent will have been delayed by the interval required to hear an appeal which must be heard in any event."

Constitutional Challenge Described as Firmly Based

Counsel submitted that the constitutional challenge is not speculative but firmly grounded, pointing to the unappealed High Court declaration that already struck down Section 8(3B)(b). The defence argued: "A scheme one of whose operative provisions has been struck down is not merely arguably infirm. That is not prediction but the existing state of the judgment under appeal."

The submissions further noted the interlocking nature of the two provisions: Section 8(3B)(a) operates expressly "subject to paragraph (b)," meaning Parliament's own language ties the surviving clause to the one now declared void.

Counsel outlined the procedural sequence without criticism of either court. On 10th December 2025, the Court of Committal declined to refer constitutional questions under Article 153(3), characterising them as frivolous and vexatious. On 5th January 2026, the Chief Justice (ag) described the challenge as abstract and speculative. Yet on 24th February 2026, the same judge declared Section 8(3B)(b) unconstitutional. The defence noted: "The character of a constitutional challenge is not reliably assessed before it has been argued out, and in this litigation it twice was not."

Two-Part Challenge to the Fugitive Offenders Act

Under Part One of their written submissions, the appellants challenge Section 8(3)(b) on the grounds that its statutory precondition was never satisfied — Grounds 25–27, 30, 32, and 35, under prayer 4(b). Counsel explained that the provision does not merely limit the Minister's power; it imposes a condition on deprivation of liberty itself: "If the condition which the Act imposes upon custody was not satisfied, the custody was not authorised by law, and Article 139 is engaged directly." Article 139(1) of Guyana's Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of personal liberty save as authorised by law.

Under Part Two, the appellants argue that Section 8(3B)(a) cannot independently survive the striking down of paragraph (b) — Grounds 16–22, 28, and 29, under prayer 4(c). Counsel described the two sub-sections as "a single mechanism in two interlocking halves," submitting: "With paragraph (b) struck down, the enacting part of paragraph (a) has lost the basis and premise of any continued legislative viability, and the non obstante part cannot survive as an effective override when the enacting words it qualifies were themselves made subject to a provision now void."

The Court of Appeal is expected to issue its directions imminently, setting the procedural course for what has become one of the more constitutionally significant extradition matters before the Guyanese judiciary in recent years.

Source: Kaieteur News