PARLIAMENT CANNOT DICTATE TREATY INTERPRETATION, CHIEF JUSTICE STRIKES DOWN KEY EXTRADITION PROVISION IN MOHAMED CASE

By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News |

GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — In a landmark constitutional ruling delivered on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, Chief Justice Navindra Singh has struck down two pivotal provisions of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009. The decision represents a significant victory for judicial independence, as the Court ruled that Parliament cannot “dictate” how judges interpret international treaties or foreign laws.

The ruling comes amid the high-profile extradition proceedings involving Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed, who are currently facing an indictment from the United States for gold smuggling and money laundering.

The Unconstitutional Provisions

The Chief Justice’s ruling focused on specific amendments that the Court found to be an overreach by the legislative branch into the judicial domain.

• Section 8(3)(b) – Invalidated: This provision previously directed courts to “read into” or “imply” protections (such as safeguards against onward extradition to a third country) into treaties even where they were not explicitly written. The Chief Justice held that Parliament cannot compel a judge to interpret a treaty in a specific way, calling it an “intrusion into the judiciary’s constitutional role.”
• Section 8(3)(c) – Invalidated: The Court found this clause unconstitutional because it unlawfully restricted individuals whose extradition is sought from seeking legal redress or complaining of infractions within Guyanese courts.

Preserving the Treaty Framework

Despite striking down these sections, the Chief Justice upheld the broader legality of Guyana’s extradition arrangements with the United States.

• The 1931 Treaty: The Court reaffirmed that the 1931 Extradition Treaty (originally between the UK and USA, and inherited by Guyana) remains valid.
• Implied Safeguards: Relying on existing legal precedents (such as King v. Director of Prisons), the Judge noted that the treaty already contains an “implied safeguard” against re-extradition to a third state. Therefore, the legislative “fix” attempted by Parliament in 2009 was not only unconstitutional but unnecessary.
• Ongoing Proceedings: Crucially, the ruling does not stop the current extradition case against the Mohameds. By removing these specific legal challenges, the ruling may actually streamline the process in the lower courts.

Impact on the Mohamed Case

This ruling is a critical turning point in the legal battle for Azruddin Mohamed, who was recently elected Leader of the Opposition while in the midst of this extradition fight.

The defense team, led by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, had argued that these provisions gave “excessive authority” to the Executive branch. While some relief was granted, the Chief Justice refused the request to halt the extradition inquiry currently before Magistrate Judy Latchman.