AG clarifies withdrawal of GRA charges, dismisses political claims in Mohamed’s extradition case
Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Mohabir Anil Nandlall, SC, has again sought to clear the air on the ongoing extradition case involving the Mohammeds, explaining that the withdrawal of tax-related charges by the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) was a necessary legal adjustment under the terms of Guyana’s extradition treaty, not a political act.
Speaking in an interview on Friday with the Department of Public Information (DPI), the Attorney General said the decision has been widely misunderstood, noting that the public discourse on the issue has been “dominated and polluted” by misinformation.
“It is an accepted and well-established principle of extradition law that domestic arrangements sometimes have to be adjusted to facilitate extradition,” Nandlall explained.
He said, “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.”
He clarified that the charges filed by the GRA were criminal.
“These are criminal charges. If a person goes to jail, the taxes are not recovered,” he said, explanning that “The state has a range of other legal remedies to recover outstanding sums, and that process is already underway. An assessment of approximately $191 billion has been completed, and the law provides a path for recovery through civil means.”
Politics used as a shield
Addressing claims that the extradition process is politically motivated, Minister Nandlall firmly rejected the assertion.
“The two subjects of the extradition request were not politicians when these things happened,” he said, before stating, “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 emphasised that the United States Government initiated the extradition process, and therefore any claim of political motivation would have to be directed to the US, not to the Government of Guyana.
“If political reasons are being advanced, they would have to be associated with the United States,” he stated. “Let them say what political relationship exists there. It has nothing to do with the Government of Guyana.”
Prosecutors represent the United States
The Attorney General also clarified a key point that has been widely misunderstood. He made it clear that the prosecutors appearing in the matter represent the Government of the United States, not the Government of 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. When we requested the extradition of Marcus Bisram from the U.S., the U.S. Attorney’s Office represented Guyana’s interest there. It’s a reciprocal arrangement”, Minister Nandlall said.
He said this demonstrates international mutuality and respect, adding that the Government of Guyana’s role is to ensure the process aligns with treaty obligations, domestic legislation, and constitutional safeguards.
Constitutional safeguards and due process
Turning to concerns about alleged constitutional violations, the Attorney General described the ongoing proceedings as sui generis: a special class of inquiry that does not amount to a criminal trial in Guyana.
“Extradition proceedings are not criminal trials. No one is being charged here for an offence in Guyana,” he explained. “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 stressed that the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence apply when an individual is charged and tried in Guyana.
“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 said.
The attorney general reiterated that extradition is a routine legal mechanism, not a political spectacle.
“If this were an ordinary case, it would have gone through the courts quietly,” he said, stating before that, “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.”