Guyana Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, has dismissed claims of political interference in the ongoing extradition case involving the Mohameds, insisting that the withdrawal of tax-related charges by the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) was a procedural requirement under Guyana’s extradition treaty—not a political decision.
Speaking with the Department of Public Information (DPI) on Friday, Nandlall said the issue has been “dominated and polluted” by misinformation, emphasizing that “it is an accepted and well-established principle of extradition law that domestic arrangements sometimes have to be adjusted to facilitate extradition.”
He explained that under the treaty’s terms, local charges could not proceed while an extradition request was active for the same or related offences. “All countries are required to do it. It is part of our treaty. The charges could not proceed here while an extradition request was active for the same or related offences,” Nandlall said.
The Attorney General further clarified that the GRA’s charges were criminal in nature, noting that “if a person goes to jail, the taxes are not recovered.” He said the government is pursuing other legal avenues to collect the outstanding sums. “An assessment of approximately $191 billion has been completed, and the law provides a path for recovery through civil means,” he added.
Politics “used as a shield”
Addressing allegations of political motivation, Nandlall rejected the claim outright. “The two subjects of the extradition request were not politicians when these things happened,” he said. “The offences charged are not political in any form or fashion. The political narrative came after the sanctions were issued, and one of the subjects entered politics. That was a deliberate choice, and now politics is being used as a shield.”
He stressed that the extradition request originated with the United States Government, not the Government of Guyana. “If political reasons are being advanced, they would have to be associated with the United States,” Nandlall said. “Let them say what political relationship exists there. It has nothing to do with the Government of Guyana.”
Prosecutors represent the U.S.
Nandlall also clarified that the prosecutors appearing in the case represent the Government of the United States, not Guyana. “That fact is not yet appreciated… The Jamaican attorneys who are in court are representing the interests of the U.S. Government. This is standard practice,” he said, citing the Marcus Bisram case as an example of reciprocal legal cooperation between the two countries.
He said the Government of Guyana’s role is to ensure the proceedings comply with treaty obligations, domestic laws, and constitutional safeguards.
Constitutional safeguards and due process
The Attorney General explained that extradition hearings are not criminal trials. “Extradition proceedings are not criminal trials. No one is being charged here for an offence in Guyana,” he said. “The Constitution expressly recognises extradition as a lawful exception under the right to liberty provisions. The process allows a person to be held pending surrender, not because they’ve been convicted, but because the law requires custody before extradition.”
He emphasized that the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence apply once an individual faces trial in the requesting country. “The trial, if it happens, will take place in the requesting country. That’s why this process exists—to determine whether the request meets the legal and treaty requirements,” he noted.
Calling the case “a routine legal mechanism, not a political spectacle,” Nandlall said the matter has only drawn attention because of those involved. “If this were an ordinary case, it would have gone through the courts quietly,” he said. “Because of who is involved, there’s heightened attention. But legally, this is a standard process, guided by law, treaties, and the principles of fairness and reciprocity.”
