GEORGETOWN, Guyana — The U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual (7 FAM 1612) defines extradition as “the process by which a person located in one country is surrendered to another country for trial or punishment,” underscoring that both the requesting and requested states carry distinct legal and fiscal duties.
The extradition treaty governing cooperation between the United States and Guyana — originally signed between the U.S. and the U.K. on December 22, 1931, and extended to British Guiana before taking effect on June 24, 1935 — continues to guide such proceedings today. Under this framework, Guyana, as the requested state, is obligated to bear certain costs related to local judicial processes, detention, and administrative facilitation up to the point where a surrender warrant is issued.
Although Article 13 of the treaty declares that “all expenses connected with the extradition shall be borne by the High Contracting Party making the application,” that clause applies primarily to costs incurred after extradition is approved—such as the transport and custody of fugitives—which fall to the requesting state. The requested state must, however, cover the procedural and judicial expenses that arise within its jurisdiction before the surrender takes place.
This distinction has taken center stage amid public scrutiny of Guyana’s decision to fund some legal and administrative costs in the ongoing extradition proceedings involving businessmen Azzedine and Nazar Mohamed. While some citizens have questioned the financial burden on taxpayers in a case initiated by U.S. authorities, legal observers note that Guyana’s actions are consistent with international treaty obligations.
Comparable cost-sharing clauses appear in other U.S. treaties — including with Argentina, Canada, and Brazil — where the requested country bears costs for its internal judicial process, and the requesting country assumes responsibility once surrender is granted. These reciprocal arrangements ensure procedural fairness and reinforce cooperation in international justice.
The framework outlined in the U.S. Department of State’s Foreign Affairs Manual aligns closely with the explanations previously offered by Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall. The manual describes extradition as a shared legal process that obliges the requested state to conduct hearings, maintain custody, and manage procedural expenses until the fugitive is formally surrendered. These provisions reflect Guyana’s approach, in which the government bears the legal and administrative costs arising within its jurisdiction.
This interpretation reinforces Nandlall’s consistent position that Guyana’s expenditures are not optional but stem directly from binding treaty obligations. He has explained that, as the requested state, Guyana must finance its part of the process to ensure compliance with both domestic law and international standards. The requesting state—in this instance, the United States—assumes financial responsibility only once the surrender warrant is issued.
Together, the U.S. State Department’s guidelines and Nandlall’s clarification affirm that Guyana’s role in the ongoing extradition matter is fully consistent with international law and long-standing diplomatic norms. While public debate continues over fiscal transparency and accountability, the record shows that Guyana’s expenditures fall squarely within its obligations as the requested state under the 1931 extradition treaty — a reflection of its commitment to the rule of law, reciprocity, and responsible international cooperation.