With extradition proceedings against businessmen Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed now firmly underway, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, has pushed back hard against what he called a calculated effort to distort Guyana’s extradition laws, insisting that the process unfolding in court is both lawful and long-established.
Speaking amid mounting public debate following the commencement of the committal hearing at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, Nandlall said sections of the defence and segments of the public discourse have fundamentally misunderstood or deliberately distorted the Fugitive Offenders Act.
“The law defines what an extraditable offence is, and the public is being misled,” Nandlall said, urging critics to read Section Five of the Act carefully rather than relying on what he called “corridor arguments and press narratives”.
Under Section Five, he explained, an offence qualifies as extraditable if the conduct, act, or omission alleged against a person constitutes an offence under Guyanese law and is punishable by death, life imprisonment, or a term of at least two years. Crucially, the law does not require the foreign offence to be an identical or “equivalent” offence under local law.
“There is no such thing as an ‘equivalent offence’ requirement,” Nandlall stressed. “That is a wrong description. What matters is whether the conduct, however described, would amount to an offence in Guyana.”
He pointed to allegations in the U.S. indictment involving money laundering, fraud, and customs violations, arguing that the factual conduct outlined, including the non-disclosure of the true value of exported gold and the use of financial systems to conceal proceeds, would plainly constitute criminal offences if committed locally.
“If you don’t declare the true value of goods for customs purposes in Guyana, is that not an offence?” he asked. “Of course it is.”
The Attorney General also addressed arguments suggesting that conspiracy and other related charges fall outside the scope of extradition. He rejected this outright, noting that the Act expressly includes inchoate (or developing) offences such as attempts, conspiracies, aiding and abetting as extraditable.
“Each extraditable offence, however described, is deemed to include attempting or conspiring to commit that offence,” he said, describing claims to the contrary as legally indefensible.
Nandlall was equally firm in responding to criticism that the prosecution failed to outline corresponding Guyanese offences before the hearing began. Citing Section 15 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, he explained that the committal court is required to determine whether an offence is extraditable after evidence is heard, not before.
“The magistrate must be satisfied after hearing the evidence that the offence is extraditable,” he said. “Not before. The evidence has now started to be taken. That is exactly what the law prescribes.”
He also defended the paper-based nature of extradition hearings, pushing back against claims that the process is unfair because witnesses are not cross-examined in the traditional sense.
“Extradition proceedings are done by paper. That is the nature of extradition,” Nandlall said. “This is not a criminal trial. It is a committal hearing. The evidence will unfold at trial in the requesting country, where the accused will have full rights to challenge witnesses.”
Describing extradition as a process that has existed for more than a century, Nandlall said the complaints reflect a lack of familiarity with the law rather than any defect in the proceedings.
More sharply, he accused defence lawyers of poisoning public confidence in the justice system when legal arguments fail.
“When they are not getting their way, they accuse the courts of bias. They accuse the Attorney General, the government, the President, the Vice President,” he said. “That is not only misleading; it brings the administration of justice into disrepute.”
As head of the Bar, Nandlall said he has a duty to call out what he described as unethical conduct, particularly the citation of foreign case law from jurisdictions such as Malaysia that operate under statutory frameworks wholly different from Guyana’s.
“You don’t need obscure foreign cases. You read the statute,” he said.
His comments come as extradition proceedings against the Mohameds continue following the formal tendering of key diplomatic documents and the testimony of the prosecution’s first witness. With the evidence phase now underway, the magistrate will ultimately be required to determine whether the alleged conduct meets the legal threshold for extradition under Guyanese law.
Meanwhile, Nandlall cautioned against what he termed “fishing expeditions” designed to stall proceedings through multiple overlapping legal challenges, warning that the courts have a duty to guard against abuse of process.
The post No ‘equivalent offence’ required – Nandlall clarifies extradition law appeared first on News Room Guyana.
