An interesting case that has caught the world’s attention is unfolding in the oil-rich South American country of Guyana. A wealthy family is fighting extradition to the United States. Azzrudin Mohamed and his father Nazar Mohamed are engaged in a hot legal battle against the Guyanese and United States governments. The duo has claimed political victimization, but that is doubtful.

Not too long ago, starting as early as 2020, when the PPP/C took office from the APNU/AFC, and lasting till around 2024, Azzrudin Mohamed enjoyed a princely status in the small South American nation. His social media page, Team Mohamed’s, quickly gained traction and rose to hundreds of thousands of followers as he showed off his luxury vehicles, regal lifestyle, and acts of charity. He moved neck-to-neck and hand-in-hand with the PPP/C government. However, things hit a slowdown in mid-2023 when the US government warned Exxon Mobil not to do business with the Mohameds due to ongoing criminal investigations. At that time, the Mohameds were named as principal investors in a multibillion-dollar Shore Base venture with Exxon Mobil. Although Exxon Mobil and the Guyana government did not address the media on the warning, the Mohameds pulled out of the project in October 2023 with Nazar Mohamed citing “religious reasons.”

The relationship between the Mohameds and the Guyanese Government subsequently continued to sour as the Minister of Education and Azzrudin Mohamed traded words over his alleged unauthorized visits to schools to make donations. But it hit a climax in 2024 when the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announced that they have sanctioned the Mohameds for financial crimes including wire fraud, tax evasion, and money laundering amounting to nearly 50 million US dollars. A Florida court later indicted the Mohameds and an extradition request was formally made to the Guyana government.

Azzrudin Mohamed subsequently formed his own political party and entered politics, naming it the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) Party. Although he did not win the September 2025 elections, he displaced the former opposition and garnered the second most votes in the country, making him the newly elected opposition leader.

As the extradition case pushes through Guyana’s legal system, the Mohameds have moved to the Caribbean Court of Justice to block the extradition. With the hearing scheduled for 21st of April 2026, things are looking dismal for the Mohameds. Here’s why.

Does Guyana have an extradition treaty with the United States?

Yes, Guyana does have an extradition treaty with the United States. However, it is not a direct, bilateral treaty. Instead, an old treaty between the United States and the United Kingdom from 1931 continues to govern extradition between the U.S. and Guyana today.

How the Treaty Works

This arrangement exists because Guyana is a former British colony. When Guyana gained independence in 1966, it adopted many existing legal frameworks, including this extradition treaty. The treaty’s provisions are now implemented through Guyana’s domestic Fugitive Offenders Act. The treaty is a fully operational part of Guyanese law. Recent high-profile cases, such as the extradition of Guyanese citizens to the U.S. on fraud and money laundering charges, confirm the treaty is actively used.

Recent Case Example

A recent case illustrates the treaty’s application. In 2025, the U.S. requested the extradition of two Guyanese businessmen (Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed) to face charges in a Florida court. The legal proceedings, including court challenges, were conducted under the framework of the 1931 U.S.-U.K. treaty,

Couldn’t the lawyers for the Mohameds argue that since Guyana is no longer a British colony, and no longer governed by the UK, the treaty is archaic and irrelevant and therefore cannot be used?

That is an excellent and very sharp legal question. You’ve hit on the central argument that legal scholars and defense lawyers are actively making in Guyana right now regarding the Mohamed case.

To answer directly: Yes, a lawyer could absolutely make that argument. In fact, the argument is more sophisticated than simply saying the treaty is “archaic.” It has two main legal pillars, and the lawyers for the Mohameds are already advancing versions of these challenges in court.

Here is a breakdown of how that argument would work and why it is a credible threat to the extradition.

🏛️ Pillar 1: The Treaty Was Never Legally “Alive” in the First Place

This is the strongest and most fundamental argument. It doesn’t just claim the treaty is old; it claims the treaty never applied to Guyana at all, even before independence.

• The Core Claim: The 1931 Extradition Treaty was between the United States and the United Kingdom. For it to apply to a British colony like British Guiana (Guyana’s name before independence), the UK had to formally “extend” the treaty to that colony using a legal mechanism called an Order in Council.
• The Missing Evidence: According to a detailed legal analysis published in Kaieteur News, there is no historical record—no Order in Council, no diplomatic note—showing that the 1931 treaty was ever officially extended to British Guiana. The treaty was extended to other colonies like Palestine and Cyprus, but British Guiana’s name is absent from every list.
• The Legal Conclusion: If the treaty was never in force in British Guiana before 1966, then there was nothing for Guyana to “inherit” at independence. A legal “savings clause” in Guyana’s Independence Constitution preserves laws that already existed; it cannot resurrect a treaty that was never there. Therefore, the treaty is not just old—it’s a legal nullity as far as Guyana is concerned.

⚖️ Pillar 2: The “Clean Slate” Doctrine

Even if a lawyer couldn’t prove the treaty never applied (Pillar 1), they would then argue that Guyana started with a “clean slate” upon independence in 1966.

• The Core Claim: International law recognizes the “clean slate” doctrine (codified in the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in Respect of Treaties), which states that a newly independent country is not automatically bound by the treaties its former colonial power signed on its behalf.
• The Need for Consent: For the 1931 treaty to continue binding Guyana after 1966, both Guyana and the US would have to explicitly consent to it, either by a new agreement, a diplomatic note, or some other clear act of reaffirmation.
• The Argument: There is no evidence that independent Guyana ever took such a step. The US government argues that a treaty can remain in force by the “absence of repudiation”, but legal experts in Guyana counter that silence or failure to deny a treaty is not the same as legally binding consent. A country cannot be bound by a treaty by default or inertia.

⚠️ The Complication: What the Courts Have Said Before

Here is where the argument gets more difficult. A lawyer making this case would have to confront existing legal precedent. Guyanese courts have previously accepted the treaty as valid.

• The Sobers Case (1999) : Guyana’s Court of Appeal explicitly relied on the 1931 treaty to approve the extradition of a man named Sobers to the United States on drug charges. The court treated the treaty as binding.
• The King Case (1991) : Another Guyanese case concluded that Guyana had not repudiated the treaty and was therefore still bound by it under the “clean slate” doctrine.
• The Government’s Position: Guyana’s Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, has firmly stated that the government is “duty bound under its treaty obligations” to proceed with the US request, citing the 1931 treaty as the valid legal basis.

⚔️ The Current Battle: Why This Argument is Being Made Now

You are not the first person to think of this. The lawyers for the Mohameds are actively using this line of attack. Attorney Siand Dhurjon has publicly stated that the 1931 treaty is not a valid basis for extradition.

Crucially, the legal analyst who wrote the article arguing the treaty was never extended also points out that previous court rulings (like King and Sobers) were likely based on a mistaken assumption—that the treaty applied to British Guiana in the first place. He argues that if you can prove that foundational fact is wrong, the precedent set by those cases collapses.

Therefore, a lawyer for the Mohameds would likely:

1. File a constitutional motion in Guyana’s High Court to challenge the treaty’s validity on these exact grounds.
2. Request a “referral” of these constitutional questions to the High Court for a definitive ruling.
3. Argue that the 1931 treaty, even if valid, does not list modern offences like wire fraud, making them non-extraditable. (This is another separate but related argument they are making).

🏁 The Bottom Line

To summarize the state of play:

The Argument FOR the Treaty	The Argument AGAINST the Treaty (Your Question)
Precedent: Guyanese courts (in Sobers, King) have accepted it as binding for decades.	Never Extended: The treaty was never formally applied to British Guiana before independence, so it was never part of our law.
State Practice: Both governments have acted as if it is valid, and the US expects it to be enforced.	Clean Slate: Even if it did apply, Guyana started fresh in 1966 and never explicitly consented to be bound by it.
No Repudiation: Guyana never formally withdrew from the treaty, implying its continuation.	Silence ≠ Consent: A country cannot be held to a treaty by mere inaction or the absence of a withdrawal letter.

So, while the argument is legally sophisticated and has strong historical support, it is an uphill battle because it asks the court to overturn its own previous decisions. However, as the legal commentary points out, if the historical facts about the treaty never being extended can be proven, a court could theoretically correct its earlier “error” and declare the treaty invalid. This is why the case is being watched so closely.

I hope this detailed breakdown is helpful. Would you like me to explain what the “dual criminality” or “specialty” principles are, as they are other key points of challenge in this case?

What is the most probable outcome in this case? It is currently before the CCJ.

Based on the latest developments, it is possible to make a reasonable prediction about the case’s trajectory. While the Mohameds have won a temporary victory with a stay of proceedings, the most probable outcome is that the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) will ultimately rule against them, allowing the extradition to proceed.

The table below summarizes the key indicators that point to this conclusion.

Indicator	What It Shows	Predicted Outcome
Lower Court Rulings	The High Court and Court of Appeal both ruled the Minister acted without bias and upheld the extradition request .	The CCJ rarely overturns unanimous rulings from lower courts unless there is a clear error in law.
Strength of Legal Argument	The Court of Appeal called the Mohameds’ appeal “absolutely without merit” .	The CCJ is unlikely to grant “special leave” (permission to appeal) for an argument so firmly rejected.
Purpose of the Current Stay	The CCJ issued a stay only to preserve the “status quo” while it hears arguments, not because it agrees with the defense .	The stay is temporary and procedural. The CCJ will almost certainly lift it if it rules against the Mohameds.

⚖️ Why the Defense Faces an Uphill Battle

To understand why the CCJ is likely to rule against the Mohameds, it helps to look at the specific arguments they are making and why they have failed so far.

• The “Political Bias” Argument: This is the core of the Mohameds’ appeal. They claim that the “Authority to Proceed” (ATP) issued by the Minister of Home Affairs was politically motivated because Azruddin Mohamed is a prominent opposition leader . However, the High Court and the Court of Appeal both firmly rejected this claim. The courts found that the Minister’s role is administrative, not judicial, and that there was no evidence to support the claim of bias . The CCJ is very unlikely to find a different outcome on these same facts.
• The “Archaic Treaty” Argument: You previously raised this very point. While a fascinating legal question, it is not part of the current appeal before the CCJ. The Mohameds’ appeal to the CCJ focuses solely on the issue of political bias regarding the Authority to Proceed. They are not asking the CCJ to rule on whether the 1931 treaty itself is valid . In fact, the High Court has already affirmed that the 1931 Extradition Treaty remains the valid basis for the proceedings . Therefore, this argument is not on the table for the April 21 hearing.

⏳ What to Expect on April 21st and Beyond

The case is now on a very fast track, with the CCJ recognizing its urgency .

• The Upcoming Hearing (April 21, 2026): On this date, the CCJ will hear the application for “special leave to appeal.” This is not the main appeal itself. The court will first decide whether the Mohameds’ case even has enough legal merit to be heard. Given the unanimous and forceful decisions from the two lower courts, the CCJ is expected to deny this application .
• If the CCJ Denies Leave: This would be the end of the road for the Mohameds in Guyana’s courts. The temporary stay would be lifted immediately, and the extradition proceedings before the magistrate would resume where they left off. The magistrate would then continue hearing evidence to decide if the men should be committed to await extradition .
• The “Hail Mary” Outcome: The only way the Mohameds can win is if the CCJ makes the surprising decision to grant them leave to appeal and then, after a full hearing, agrees that the Minister’s decision was politically biased. This is considered a very low-probability scenario based on the current record.

In short, while the legal battle has reached the highest court, the Mohameds have a very steep hill to climb. The legal system has so far found no flaw in the government’s handling of the US extradition request.

If the CCJ rejects their argument of political bias, can’t they present a case that the extradition treaty is irrelevant or invalid?

The short answer is no, they cannot simply pivot and present that new case if the CCJ rejects their political bias argument.

Based on the current legal proceedings, the Mohameds are legally barred from raising the validity of the 1931 extradition treaty in this specific appeal. Here is the breakdown of why.

🚧 The CCJ’s Scope is Extremely Narrow

The matter currently before the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is strictly limited to one specific legal question: whether the Minister of Home Affairs’ decision to issue the “Authority to Proceed” was invalid due to political bias .

The CCJ is not conducting a full review of the extradition case. It is hearing an application for “special leave to appeal” the Court of Appeal’s decision, which already ruled that the political bias argument had “no merit” . Therefore, the only question the CCJ will answer on April 21, 2026, is whether the lower courts were wrong about the bias claim.

⚖️ The Treaty’s Validity is Already Settled Law

More importantly, the argument that the 1931 treaty is “irrelevant or invalid” is not a new legal frontier. Guyanese courts have already considered and firmly rejected this very argument in previous cases, establishing it as settled precedent.

The argument you proposed—that the 1931 treaty never applied to British Guiana—was extensively litigated in the 1992 Court of Appeal case King v The Director of Prisons . In that case, the appellant tried to resist extradition by arguing that Guyana was not bound by pre-independence treaties under the “clean slate” doctrine.

The Court of Appeal explicitly rejected this, holding that:

“If Guyana did not adopt those previous arrangements, then serious disruptions in the international spheres of commerce, industry, communication and diplomatic relations… might have ensued… Guyana took no such step.” 

The court ruled that the 1931 Treaty and the 1935 Order in Council giving it effect were “applied laws” that Guyana inherited at independence and remain in full force . This precedent has been consistently followed in subsequent cases, including Dataram  and the recent High Court decision in the Mohameds’ own case.

📜 The High Court Has Already Ruled on the Treaty

Most critically, in February 2026, Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh explicitly ruled on the validity of the 1931 treaty within the Mohamed case itself. The court declared that the extradition request was properly made “pursuant to the 1931 Extradition Treaty which continues to operate between Guyana and the United States through domestic law” .

The judge upheld key sections of Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act that facilitate the treaty’s operation. The Mohameds’ legal team has already had the opportunity to challenge the treaty’s validity at the High Court level—and they lost .

🗺️ The Path Forward: What are Their Options?

Scenario	What Happens	Can They Challenge the Treaty?
CCJ rejects the bias appeal	The stay is lifted. The extradition committal proceedings resume before the magistrate to determine if the Mohameds should be committed to await extradition.	No. The treaty’s validity is already established law. The magistrate’s role is to apply the law, not to reconsider settled constitutional questions.
The Mohameds lose at committal	They can appeal to the High Court and then the Court of Appeal on legal questions (e.g., if the magistrate made an error in interpreting the treaty).	Potentially. They could argue that the lower court misapplied the existing treaty precedent, but they cannot ask the court to overturn the binding precedent that the treaty is valid.
The CCJ grants leave & rules in their favor	The Authority to Proceed is quashed, and the extradition process would effectively end.	Not applicable. This scenario is considered highly unlikely by legal observers given the unanimous lower court rulings .

In short, the Mohameds’ current legal battle is focused on a single issue: political bias. The validity of the extradition treaty is a separate legal question that has already been decided by Guyanese courts, including in their own case at the High Court level. They cannot use the CCJ appeal as a vehicle to re-litigate that settled issue.

Will the CCJ pronounce the Mohameds’ extradition case tomorrow (April 21) or just hear it and convene the matter later?

Based on the court’s scheduling orders, the CCJ will not issue a final ruling on the Mohameds’ extradition tomorrow, April 21st. Instead, the court will hear the case and is expected to make a decision, which could be delivered either later on the same day or at a subsequent, unspecified date.

📅 What Is Happening on April 21st

The hearing on April 21st is scheduled as a single, combined proceeding to address both procedural and substantive aspects of the appeal.

• Purpose of the Hearing: The CCJ will hear the application for “special leave to appeal” together with the substantive appeal itself. This means the court will first decide whether to grant the Mohameds permission to appeal and, if leave is granted, will immediately proceed to hear the full legal arguments of the appeal.
• Nature of the Proceeding: The hearing is a legal argument before a panel of CCJ judges, not a trial with witnesses or new evidence. It will be conducted via video conference.

⚖️ What to Expect After the Hearing

The timing of the CCJ’s final decision is not fixed. Based on the court’s own procedures, there are two likely scenarios:

Scenario	Description	Likelihood
Decision Rendered Same Day	The CCJ could announce its decision (either granting or denying the appeal) immediately after hearing arguments on April 21st.	This is possible, as the court has acted with urgency and expedited the entire schedule.
Decision Reserved for Later Date	The CCJ could “reserve judgment,” meaning they take time to deliberate and write a reasoned decision. The final ruling would then be announced on a future date, which the court would communicate later.	This is the more common practice for appeals of this complexity, especially when detailed legal reasoning is required.

The table below summarizes the key procedural milestones the CCJ has already established for this case:

Milestone	Date
Respondents file affidavits in opposition	April 2, 2026
All parties file written submissions	April 10, 2026
Parties file reply submissions	April 15, 2026
Hearing (Application for Special Leave & Substantive Appeal)	April 21, 2026

🔍 What the CCJ Will Decide

The CCJ will rule on two main issues during this hearing:

1. Whether to grant “special leave to appeal” – Essentially, whether the Mohameds’ case has sufficient legal merit to be heard by the CCJ at all.
2. If leave is granted, the substantive appeal itself – The CCJ would then decide whether the Court of Appeal was wrong to dismiss the Mohameds’ claim of political bias and whether the extradition should be halted.

If the CCJ grants leave and rules in favor of the Mohameds, the extradition process would likely be stopped. If the CCJ denies leave or rules against them, the temporary stay on extradition proceedings will be lifted, and the case will return to the Magistrate’s Court to continue.

In short, tomorrow is the hearing, not the guaranteed final day for a decision. A ruling could come tomorrow, but it may also be reserved for a later date.

What happens if the CCJ Rules Against the Mohameds?

If the CCJ rules against the Mohameds, the extradition process will move forward quickly. Here is the step-by-step breakdown of what happens next.

⚖️ Immediate Consequence: The Stay is Lifted

The first and most immediate effect of a CCJ ruling against the Mohameds would be the automatic lifting of the current stay on proceedings .

• The stay was granted by the CCJ specifically to preserve the “status quo” while the appeal was pending .
• A ruling against the Mohameds means the CCJ has found no legal basis to continue the pause.
• The case would be sent back to the Magistrate’s Court in Georgetown to resume exactly where it left off .

👨‍⚖️ Resumption of the Committal Hearing

Once the stay is lifted, the extradition case returns to Magistrate Judy Latchman for the continuation of the committal proceedings .

This is the critical stage where the magistrate determines whether the Mohameds should be committed to prison to await formal extradition to the United States.

Aspect of Committal Hearing	What It Involves
Purpose	To determine if there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the Mohameds to the U.S. to stand trial, not to determine guilt or innocence.
Process	The prosecution presents evidence (likely including the U.S. indictment and supporting documents). The defense can cross-examine witnesses.
Standard of Proof	The magistrate applies the standard set by Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act, typically whether there is a prima facie case (sufficient evidence to commit).
Current Status	Proceedings began in October 2025. The prosecution’s first witness was being cross-examined when the CCJ stay was granted .

⏳ What If They Lose at the Committal Stage?

If Magistrate Latchman rules against the Mohameds and orders their committal, the case is not necessarily over. The defense would have further legal avenues:

1. Appeal to the High Court: The Mohameds can appeal the magistrate’s committal order to the High Court. This would be a new legal challenge, not a continuation of the current bias argument.
2. Further Appeals: From the High Court, they could potentially appeal to the Court of Appeal and then back to the CCJ, starting a new appellate cycle.
3. Habeas Corpus Application: They could also file a separate application for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing their detention is unlawful.

However, it is important to note that the core argument about the treaty’s validity has already been ruled upon by the High Court in this very case, which found the 1931 treaty remains the valid legal basis for the extradition .

📝 Summary: The Road Ahead

To summarize the potential paths:

CCJ Ruling	Immediate Effect	Next Step in Process
Rules Against Mohameds	Stay is lifted immediately	Case returns to Magistrate’s Court to continue committal hearing.
Magistrate Orders Committal	Mohameds are committed to await extradition	Defense can appeal committal order to the High Court.
Magistrate Dismisses Case	Extradition request fails	State can appeal the magistrate’s decision.

⏰ The Urgency Factor

The CCJ has emphasized the need for a swift resolution, with Justice Winston Anderson noting that “urgency is a desired objective” . The court has already demonstrated its commitment to speed by ordering an expedited filing schedule for the current appeal .

This suggests that if the case returns to the magistrate, there will be significant pressure to complete the committal proceedings without the delays that have previously occurred. The defense has been accused of employing delay tactics, including a medical certificate for dengue fever that was questioned by the prosecution .

The specific evidentiary standard the magistrate will apply during the committal hearing?

If the CCJ rules against the Mohameds, the case will return to Magistrate Judy Latchman for the committal hearing. This is a critical stage in the extradition process where the magistrate must decide whether there is sufficient evidence to justify sending the Mohameds to the United States to stand trial.

At this hearing, the magistrate applies a specific legal standard: whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case against the accused.

⚖️ The Prima Facie Standard Explained

Prima facie is a Latin term meaning “at first sight” or “on the face of it.” In the context of an extradition committal hearing, it does not mean the magistrate must be convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, it is a lower threshold. The magistrate must determine whether the evidence presented by the prosecution is sufficiently strong that, if it were uncontradicted at a trial, a reasonable jury, properly directed, could convict the accused .

Think of it as a gateway test, not a trial. The question is not “Are they guilty?” but rather “Is there a credible case to answer that should be heard by a court in the requesting country?”

📜 How the Standard is Applied Under Guyanese Law

The magistrate applies this standard under the framework of Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act (Cap. 10:04) . The process has evolved to become more efficient.

Feature of the Committal Hearing	What It Means
Modern Evidence Rules	Recent amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act (passed in July 2024) now allow a wider range of documents to be admitted as evidence. This includes a “record of evidence” describing the identity and location of the person sought, the facts of the case, and the relevant legal provisions .
Focus on Documents	The process is designed to be paper-based. The magistrate reviews the submitted evidence from the requesting country (the U.S.) and hears arguments, rather than conducting a full oral trial with live witnesses for every point .
Prosecution’s Burden	The prosecution must present enough evidence to clear the prima facie bar. In the Mohameds’ case, this evidence includes the U.S. indictment, warrants for arrest, diplomatic notes, and a certificate from Guyana’s Foreign Minister confirming the existence of the extradition treaty with the U.S. .

📝 What This Looks Like in the Mohameds’ Case

Magistrate Latchman has already made significant procedural rulings that clarify how the evidence will be treated.

• Evidence is Admissible: The magistrate has ruled that documentation provided by the U.S. government, including a diplomatic note and authenticated statements, is admissible . A certificate from the Minister of Foreign Affairs is also considered key evidence to prove the extradition arrangement exists .
• No More “Chess”: The magistrate has shown she intends to move the case forward efficiently. She has ordered that all disclosure from the prosecution is now closed, warning the state that the case is “not a game of chess” and refusing to allow endless new evidence to be introduced .
• Defense Arguments: The defense has already argued that the prosecution has failed to provide corresponding local charges to ground the request. This is a key argument that goes directly to whether the prima facie standard has been met . The magistrate will have to rule on this.

🔍 What the Magistrate Will Specifically Look For

To determine if a prima facie case exists, Magistrate Latchman will examine the evidence to ensure certain requirements are met:

1. Identity: The evidence must clearly identify Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed as the individuals named in the U.S. extradition request and the corresponding arrest warrants .
2. Dual Criminality: The acts alleged by the U.S. (e.g., fraud, money laundering related to gold exports) must also constitute a criminal offense under Guyanese law .
3. Sufficient Evidence: The documents must contain a statement of the facts of the case. The magistrate must find that this evidence, on its face, is strong enough to commit them for trial in the U.S. .

If the magistrate decides that the prosecution has met this prima facie standard, she will issue a committal order, sending the Mohameds to await extradition. If she finds the evidence lacking, she will discharge them, and the extradition request would fail.

To summarize the core difference: The magistrate’s decision is not about guilt, but about whether the U.S. has provided a sufficiently solid case to warrant sending the Mohameds there to face trial.

What Happens if the Magistrate Issues a Committal Order?

Based on standard extradition procedures and recent precedents, if Magistrate Latchman issues a committal order, the Mohameds would be transferred to the Camp Street Prison in Georgetown, Guyana, to await the final decision on their extradition to the United States .

The table below outlines the standard physical process that follows a committal order, based on the established pattern from other recent extraditions.

Step	Action & Location	Details
1	Committal to Prison	Following the magistrate’s committal order, the Mohameds would be transferred from the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court to the Camp Street Prison in Georgetown to be held on remand .
2	Removal & Transfer	If the extradition is approved to proceed, they would be removed from Camp Street Prison and transported under heavy security escort to the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) in Timehri .
3	Handover & Departure	At the airport, custody of the individuals would be formally handed over to U.S. Marshals, who would then place them on a flight bound for the United States .

The case of Ronley Floyd Bynoe, who was extradited from Guyana to the U.S. in March 2026, provides a recent real-world example of this exact process. He was held at Camp Street Prison before being escorted to the airport and handed over to U.S. Marshals for a flight to the United States . This same procedure was also followed in a separate extradition from Guyana to Canada in 2025 .

It is important to remember that if the magistrate does issue a committal order, the Mohameds still have the right to appeal that decision. Only after those appeals are exhausted would the physical transfer process described above take place .

Will they Avoid Prison if they Appeal?

The short answer is no. If the Mohameds appeal a committal order, they would go to prison (specifically, Camp Street Prison) to await the outcome of their appeal. An appeal does not automatically keep them out of jail.

The Mohameds’ own legal filings confirm this very risk. In their arguments to the Court of Appeal, they specifically warned that if the extradition proceedings were not paused, they could be “committed to prison to await extradition” and that, at that point, “bail would no longer be available” .

Here is a breakdown of the sequence and how the legal process works in Guyana:

🏛️ The Legal Sequence of Events

To understand why an appeal doesn’t prevent imprisonment, it helps to look at the sequence of events in an extradition case.

1. Committal Order is Issued: If Magistrate Latchman finds that the prosecution has met the prima facie standard, she will issue a committal order. This is a legal order that formally sends the Mohameds to prison to await the final extradition decision.
2. Immediate Transfer to Prison: This committal order is not theoretical. As outlined in the previous response, it triggers the immediate transfer of the accused from the courthouse to Camp Street Prison in Georgetown.
3. Right to Appeal is Triggered: It is after the committal order is issued that the Mohameds gain the full legal right to challenge the magistrate’s decision. They can file an appeal against the committal order.
4. Appeal is Heard from Prison: The key point is that the law in Guyana does not provide for an automatic “stay” (pause) of imprisonment just because an appeal is filed. The appeals process is designed to take place while the individual is already in custody, awaiting the final outcome .

⚖️ The “Bail” Question

Once a magistrate issues a committal order, the legal situation changes significantly for the accused.

• Bail is No Longer an Option: Under Guyana’s extradition laws, once a person has been committed to prison to await extradition, the general rule is that they are no longer eligible for bail. They are detained in custody pending the final resolution of their case .
• The Only Way to Stay Out: The only way the Mohameds could avoid going to prison after a committal order is if a higher court (like the Court of Appeal or the CCJ) issues a specific stay of proceedings. This is a separate court order that actively overrides the magistrate’s committal order and pauses the entire process. The Mohameds have been seeking these stays throughout their case, and the CCJ has currently granted one until the April 21 hearing .

📝 The Mohameds’ Own Strategy Shows This

The fact that the Mohameds are fighting so hard to get a “stay” before the magistrate makes a decision proves the point. Their lawyers have explicitly argued that if the committal proceedings are completed and they are committed to prison, their appeal would be “meaningless” because they would already be incarcerated .

The Attorney General of Guyana has also stated that the law “does not contemplate pre-emptive strikes” but rather that the magistrate’s process should be completed, after which “the challenges follow” . This confirms that the intended legal path is: Committal → Prison → Appeal.

To summarize, the act of filing an appeal does not automatically grant freedom. The Mohameds would have to convince a judge to grant a specific “stay of execution” on the committal order to avoid going to prison, which is a separate and difficult legal battle.

What if they are committed to prison?

If the magistrate issues a committal order and the Mohameds choose not to appeal, the timeline from prison to transfer to the USA is measured in days or weeks, not months or years.

Based on the most recent Guyanese extradition precedent, the transfer process from Camp Street Prison to the United States takes approximately 2 to 3 weeks from the date the committal order is finalized.

📊 The Bynoe Precedent: A Real-World Timeline

The most useful guide is the case of Ronley Floyd Bynoe, a Guyanese citizen extradited to the United States in March 2026 . His case followed the exact legal path you are asking about.

Here is the timeline of his case after the committal stage:

Milestone	Date	Key Detail
Magistrate’s Committal Order	February 19, 2026	Bynoe was arrested and appeared before a magistrate, where he consented to extradition. This consent is effectively the same outcome as a magistrate issuing a committal order against an accused’s will.
Transfer from Camp Street Prison	Night of March 3, 2026	He was taken from Camp Street Prison at approximately 9:00 PM .
Escort to Airport	Late night March 3	He was escorted under security to the Cheddi Jagan International Airport (CJIA) in Timehri.
Handover to US Marshals	Early morning March 4	He was handed over to two U.S. Marshals at the airport .
Departure to USA	1:30 AM on March 4	Bynoe was placed on an American Airlines flight bound for the United States .

Total time from magistrate’s order to transfer: Approximately 13 days.

⏳ Why the Timeline is Short (When There is No Appeal)

The transfer happens quickly for two main reasons:

1. Ministerial Authority is Immediate: Once the magistrate issues a committal order, the law requires that order to be transmitted to the Minister of Home Affairs. The Minister then has the final statutory authority to approve the extradition and issue the surrender order . This ministerial step is generally swift because the government has already indicated its willingness to proceed.
2. The Process is Administrative, Not Judicial: As the Attorney General and the President have both emphasized, the magistrate’s role is not to try the case, but only to determine if there is sufficient evidence to commit the accused . Once that decision is made, the remaining steps (prison transfer, airport escort, handover to U.S. Marshals) are purely administrative actions carried out by the police and prison authorities.

📝 Summary: What This Means for the Mohameds

If the CCJ rules against them and the magistrate later issues a committal order, here is the likely outcome assuming they do not appeal:

• They will be held at Camp Street Prison in Georgetown .
• Within approximately two weeks, the Minister of Home Affairs would sign the extradition order.
• On a designated night, they would be removed from Camp Street Prison, driven under guard to Cheddi Jagan International Airport, and handed over to U.S. Marshals.
• They would depart Guyana on a commercial or charter flight bound for the United States, likely within 24 hours of leaving the prison.

The Bynoe case makes clear that once the legal process at the magistrate level is complete, the physical transfer to the United States happens with notable speed and efficiency.

On What Grounds Can the Mohameds Appeal Further?

Based on the legal framework and the recent court rulings in this specific case, here is an analysis of the grounds for appeal, the timeline for imprisonment if they appeal, and an assessment of their chances of success.

📜 Grounds for Appeal After Committal

If Magistrate Latchman issues a committal order, the Mohameds will have two primary legal paths to challenge it. These are distinct from the political bias argument that has already been rejected by the High Court and Court of Appeal.

1. Appeal to the High Court for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
This is the most direct and immediate route. Under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act, a person committed to custody has a statutory right to apply to the High Court for a writ of habeas corpus . This application must be made within 15 days of the committal order .

The High Court can order the person’s discharge if satisfied that extradition would be “unjust or oppressive” due to:

• The trivial nature of the offence
• The passage of time since the alleged offence
• The accusation not being made in good faith or in the interests of justice
• Any other sufficient cause 

This appeal focuses on whether the magistrate’s decision to commit was legally sound, not on re-arguing the entire case.

2. Substantive Appeal to the Court of Appeal on Constitutional Questions
The Mohameds have already filed a separate substantive appeal challenging the constitutionality of parts of the Fugitive Offenders Act, particularly amendments made in 2009 . This appeal is still pending before the Court of Appeal, with a ruling expected . They have argued that the 2009 amendments are unconstitutional, though the Attorney General has noted these amendments have been upheld for over 15 years in other extradition matters .

⏳ How Long Would They Stay in Prison if They Appeal?

If they appeal, the law provides that they cannot be extradited until all appeal proceedings are complete. The timeline is as follows:

Stage	Legal Protection	Minimum Time in Custody
After Committal Order	Cannot be extradited until the 15-day period for filing a habeas corpus application expires .	15 days
Habeas Corpus Appeal Filed	Extradition is automatically delayed while the High Court hears the application .	Duration of High Court proceedings (weeks to months)
Appeal to Court of Appeal	If either side appeals the High Court’s decision, extradition is further delayed until that appeal is disposed of .	Duration of Court of Appeal proceedings (months)
CCJ Appeal	The Attorney General has confirmed that the Fugitive Offenders Act expressly prevents extradition while appeals are pending, including up to the Caribbean Court of Justice .	Duration of CCJ proceedings (potentially 6+ months)

In practice, if they exhaust all appeal options, they could remain in custody at Camp Street Prison for several months to over a year, depending on court scheduling and the complexity of the constitutional arguments.

⚖️ Would Their Appeal Have Merit?

This is the critical question. The short answer is that their chances of success on appeal are very low based on the court’s findings so far.

The table below summarizes the key arguments and their likelihood of success:

Ground of Appeal	Court’s Finding	Likelihood of Success
Political Bias (Minister’s ATP)	Unanimously rejected by Court of Appeal as having “absolutely no merit” . The court found the minister performed an administrative function where bias does not arise .	Very Low – Already ruled against
Political Bias (Attorney General’s advice)	Court found “there is no evidence” that legal advice from the AG could be tainted with bias .	Very Low – Already ruled against
Constitutionality of 2009 Amendments	Attorney General has stated the amendments have been upheld for over 15 years and applied to several extradition matters . No specific constitutional violation has been identified.	Low – Longstanding, upheld law
“Unjust or Oppressive” (Habeas Corpus)	Given the serious nature of the allegations (US$50 million gold export fraud scheme), the trivial nature and passage of time arguments are unlikely to succeed .	Low – Serious allegations

The Court of Appeal was unequivocal in its ruling. Acting Chancellor Roxane George stated that “on the facts of this case, bias does not arise” and that there was “no evidence that the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act regarding the issue of the ATP were not followed” . The court also firmly rejected the argument that a minister cannot sign an ATP regarding a political rival, stating, “It cannot be that the minister or any minister of the government who has responsibility for extradition matters cannot sign an ATP regarding someone who is a political rival” .

The Attorney General has characterized these challenges as having “no likelihood of success” and noted that a stay is only granted when an appeal is strong—which was denied in this case .

Was the Attorney General Supposed to Defend the Mohameds?

No, the Attorney General was not supposed to defend the Mohameds. In fact, his office is legally and constitutionally on the opposite side of the case, actively representing the State’s interest in extraditing them.

Here is the specific breakdown of the Attorney General’s role and why he is not defending them.

⚖️ The Attorney General’s Actual Role: The State’s Prosecutor

The confusion often stems from the title “Attorney General.” In Guyana, as in many Commonwealth countries, this role is not a public defender. The Attorney General is the principal legal adviser to the Government of Guyana and the chief legal representative of the State .

In the extradition case against Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed, the State’s interest is to successfully process the extradition request from the United States. Therefore, the Attorney General and his chambers are legally aligned against the Mohameds.

The table below outlines the Attorney General’s key responsibilities in this context and how they apply to the case:

Attorney General’s Role	Application in the Mohameds’ Case
Legal Adviser to the Government	Advised the Minister of Home Affairs on the legality of issuing the “Authority to Proceed” with the extradition .
Defender of State Actions in Court	The AG’s chambers (led by Solicitor General Nigel Hawke) appeared in court to defend the Minister’s decision against claims of political bias .
Representative of the Guyana Police Force	The AG’s office is responsible for providing legal representation for the police, who are the nominal respondents in the extradition matter .
Guardian of International Treaty Obligations	Argued that the government has a duty to honor the extradition treaty with the U.S. and that domestic cases may be “adjusted” to facilitate this .

🛡️ Does Anyone Have a Duty to Defend the Mohameds?

As citizens, the Mohameds have the right to legal representation, but that responsibility falls on them as private individuals. Under Guyana’s legal system:

• The State’s Duty is Not to Defend: The State has no legal obligation to provide defense lawyers for citizens facing criminal proceedings, whether those proceedings are local or international.
• The Mohameds Have Their Own Lawyers: The businessmen have hired a team of private attorneys to defend them. This team includes prominent lawyers such as Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva .

The Attorney General, Anil Nandlall, has explicitly argued that the Mohameds’ case is an attempt to “use politics as a shield” against a legitimate extradition process, and his office has been actively working to have the extradition proceed .

🇺🇸 The Involvement of the U.S. Legal Team

Further confirming that the AG represents the State against the Mohameds, the government hired a team of Jamaican lawyers, led by Terrence F. Williams, KC, to act as the prosecutors in the case .

Attorney General Nandlall explained that while these lawyers represent the interests of the U.S. government (the requesting state), Guyana, as the requested state, is obligated to pay for their legal expenses as part of standard international extradition practice .

This arrangement was designed to avoid any perception of political interference by using local lawyers . The AG has confirmed that the US$62,000 payment to this Jamaican legal team was a standard part of Guyana’s “duty in extradition law” .

In short, the Attorney General is not and cannot be the Mohameds’ defender, as his constitutional duty is to represent the State—which in this case is seeking their extradition. Their defense is being handled by their own privately retained legal team.

🏁 Conclusion

While the Mohameds have multiple legal avenues to appeal a committal order—including habeas corpus to the High Court and a pending constitutional appeal—their chances of success are very low. The courts have already firmly rejected their core arguments about political bias, and the remaining constitutional challenge faces an uphill battle given the law’s long-standing application.

If they pursue all appeals, they could remain in custody at Camp Street Prison for several months while those proceedings unfold, but the legal momentum strongly favors the extradition proceeding.