Attorney General Anil Nandlall told the Court of Appeal this morning that the United States has assured the Guyana Government that U.S-indicted businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed will not be extradited to a third State, as he clashed with Attorney for the Mohameds, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde over the Extradition Treaty, and the constitutionality of the Fugitive Offenders Act.

The Attorney General and Forde appeared before the Chancellor of the Judiciary, Roxane George and Justices of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Nareshwar Harnanan this morning in a case brought by the Mohameds challenging the High Court’s decision that the Fugitive Offenders Act is in keeping with the Constitution.

That ruling paved the way for the extradition proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court to continue.

But the Mohameds through their Attorneys, are maintaining that both the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United Kingdom and the US, which was adopted by Guyana, and sections of the Fugitive Offenders Act are inconsistent with the Constitution.

The Mohameds are arguing that Section 8 (3) (b) of the Fugitive Offenders Act guards against a citizen of Guyana being extradited to a third state without the consent of the Minister, but that safeguard is not embedded in the treaty.

But from the outset of his oral arguments today, the Attorney General rejected that argument telling the Court that Article 7 of the Treaty provides that protection.

“The Treaty now is being Guyana and the US. It does not speak to any other territory. It doesn’t speak to any activity outside of the United States and Guyana. And in this case, a request as been made for two citizens of Guyana and the request is being processed in accordance with law. If it eventuates in the extradition of the two applicants, they are only to be dealt with in the United States…there is no third State that is contemplated by the treaty,” the Attorney General argued.

He argued that the treaty is not inconsistent with the Act.

The Attorney General also submitted to the Court that the US has since offered Guyana the assurances that the Mohameds will not be extradited to a third state for any other offence.

“Very early, the State of Guyana recognized that it was going to be a legal issue and solicited from the United States of America in relation to the existing treaty arrangements, as countries do in extradition cases, we sought from the United States of America through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs an assurance that should these two individuals be extradited to the United States of America, give us that assurance the United States of America that you will not send them to a third States…and the Americans through the appropriate channel have furnished that assurance,” the Attorney General told the appellate court.

Senior Counsel Forde told the Court that the Act mandates that the protection against extradition to a third State must be embedded in the treaty arrangement.

He said the assurances offered by the US through Diplomatic Notes will not suffice, explaining that the Diplomatic Notes came five weeks after the request for extradition was made.

“The safeguard does two things. It keeps with Guyana, through its Minister, the decision whether a person Guyana has surrendered may be sent on to a third State. And it protects the liberty of the person, because Parliament attached the condition not only to extradition but to committal and to custody. Article 139 of the Constitution permits a person’s liberty to be taken only as authorized by law,” Forde argued.

The case has been adjourned.

Until a decision is handed down, the earlier order issued by the Appeal Court preventing the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court from issuing its final decision in the extradition proceedings remain enforced. The extradition hearings, however, are allowed to continue.

Related posts:

Court of Appeal to issue directions for hearing of appeal in Mohameds’ extradition case High Court throws out most of Mohameds’ challenge to Fugitive Offenders’ Act; But finds inconsistency with one Section Mohameds move to High Court to challenge constitutionality of Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act Attorneys argue over constitutionality of Fugitive Offenders Amendment Act in Mohameds extradition hearing