标签： Guyana

The decades-long territorial dispute between South American neighbors Guyana and Venezuela is set to enter a new, critical phase next month, as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will launch oral hearings on the merits of Guyana’s case starting May 4, Guyana’s Attorney General Anil Nandlall confirmed in an appearance on his weekly social media program *Issues In The News* on Tuesday evening.

Nandlall, who will travel to The Hague to join Guyana’s legal team alongside the country’s co-agent Carl Greenidge and a cohort of international legal experts, noted the hearings are scheduled to run through the full week of May 4, and could extend into the following week if the volume of arguments and proceedings requires additional time. As of Tuesday evening, neither the ICJ nor Venezuela’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs has issued an official public statement confirming the hearing schedule or outlining Venezuela’s planned arguments for the proceedings.

The dispute centers on the 1899 Arbitral Tribunal Award that established the formal land border between the two countries, which Venezuela has repeatedly refused to recognize. Caracas continues to claim sovereignty over the 160,000-square-kilometer Essequibo Region, a resource-rich territory rich in mineral deposits and old-growth forests that accounts for roughly two-thirds of Guyana’s total land area, as well as Guyana’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) stretching offshore from the region.

The outcome of the case carries major commercial stakes for the global energy sector, as multiple major international oil companies hold active exploration and production concessions in offshore waters adjacent to Essequibo. Guyana first brought the case to the ICJ for adjudication on March 29, 2018, and energy industry stakeholders have been closely tracking its progress ever since.

In January 2026, Darren Woods, CEO of US energy giant ExxonMobil – which leads development of the massive Stabroek Block offshore Essequibo that has already yielded more than 11 billion barrels of proven oil reserves – described the upcoming ICJ ruling as a “critical milestone” that will shape the company’s long-term investment and operational plans in the region. Last month, Nicole Theriot, the United States Ambassador to Guyana, announced that Washington stands ready to facilitate bilateral negotiations between Guyana and Venezuela to settle remaining maritime boundary disputes after the ICJ issues its final ruling, which is currently expected in early 2027.

A key complication for post-ruling negotiations is Venezuela’s non-membership in the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the international framework that governs maritime boundary delimitation. Unlike Guyana and neighboring Suriname, Venezuela has not ratified the convention, meaning any final maritime agreement will require direct bilateral negotiations between Georgetown and Caracas with no binding international legal framework to govern the process.

On Tuesday, April 21, 2026, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) opened a tense session focused on more than just the legal merits of an extradition appeal: judges zeroed in on controversial public statements made by Guyana’s top legal official, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, regarding two US-sanctioned and wanted Guyanese businessmen, Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed.

The case currently before the regional court stems from the Mohameds’ appeal of an Arrest Warrant Authorization (ATP) issued last October by Guyana’s Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond. The ATP authorized a local magistrate to move forward with an arrest warrant to open extradition committal proceedings for the pair, who have been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control over allegations of financial misconduct. All lower court proceedings have been put on hold pending the CCJ’s final ruling, which has not yet been scheduled.

During Tuesday’s hearing, the issue of Nandlall’s public commentary took center stage after the Mohameds’ legal team argued that the attorney general’s repeated public statements created a taint of bias that undermines the fairness of the entire extradition process.

CCJ President Winston Anderson acknowledged that all legal professionals, including government lawyers, hold a protected right to free speech. Still, he emphasized that out-of-court statements that risk eroding public trust in judicial processes or compromising the fairness of ongoing proceedings have no place in a functional democracy. “Statements which are made outside of these proceedings and which could have the effect of undermining the fairness of the proceedings, or which could undermine public confidence in the administration of justice, should be avoided,” Anderson stated, adding that he expected legal representatives to adhere to professional guidelines and that the court would prefer not to address the issue again.

Anderson went on to press Nandlall, noting that while serious allegations against the Mohameds are already on the public record, there was no clear reason for the government’s chief legal advisor to issue public pronouncements on the ongoing case. The court highlighted that the “elephant in the room” is the Mohameds’ core claim: that Nandlall’s public comments revealed a predetermined bias against them in any extradition request, a claim that Minister Walrond – who received legal advice from Nandlall before issuing the ATP – did not refute from her position in the courtroom.

Justice Chile Eboe-Osuji expanded on the court’s concerns, clarifying that the issue is not whether the Attorney General has the authority to make formal decisions in the case, but whether his public comments – which included criminal accusations against the applicants, ongoing public commentary on the extradition process, and implied criticism of Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman who is assigned to the committal proceedings – have irreparably biased the process. Eboe-Osuji posed a sharp question to Nandlall: “Is there something to be said that it is part of the job of the AG to bring the population back to say, look, respect the process, let the process take its course rather than making comments that might add to that negative public view on the matter?”

Judge Arif Bulkan also pushed back on Nandlall’s attempts to frame the controversy as a product of political rivalry, pointing out that the attorney general had failed to directly address the court’s core question about his comments on the extradition case and its expected outcome. Nandlall pushed back against the judges’ questioning, denying he had ever commented on the projected outcome of the proceedings. He argued his public remarks focused instead on public concerns over the length of the ongoing committal process and referenced already public information: the US sanctions against the Mohameds that had been widely reported by international outlets including Reuters.

Nandlall further defended his comments by noting many of the remarks were made during the 2025 Guyanese general and regional election campaign, a period when public debate over political and policy issues is heightened. “This is his rap sheet; this is what we have to speak about,” he told the court, adding that he had not made any improper statements. He argued that any perceived missteps stem from incorrect quotation, and that his comments were framed appropriately with respect for the judicial system, and any use of his remarks against him is politically motivated. “The comments that were made were in their proper context. They may have been disputed and used for political purposes, but they were not improper statements,” he said.

The Mohameds’ legal team has argued that Minister Walrond’s decision to authorize the arrest warrant is fatally biased because she acted on advice from Nandlall, who has repeatedly publicly condemned the pair and commented on their multiple ongoing court cases at every level of the Guyanese judicial system, from the magistrates’ court to the Court of Appeal. They also point out that Walrond herself publicly spoke out against the Mohameds during the 2025 election campaign.

In closing the court’s questioning on the issue, President Anderson noted that the panel of judges was actively questioning whether Nandlall’s comments aligned with the standards of best practice needed to strengthen democratic governance and the rule of law in Guyana. Nandlall reiterated that his role was limited to providing legal advice to the Home Affairs Minister, who retained full authority to make the final decision on the ATP.

On Tuesday, the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) convened a high-stakes hearing for an appeal brought by Guyanese father-son businessmen Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed, who are wanted by United States authorities. The pair is challenging the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by Guyana’s Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond, which cleared the way for their extradition proceedings to move forward.

Contrary to common assumptions in extradition challenges, the Mohameds do not oppose the extradition request itself. Their core argument centers on a claim of political bias tainting Walrond’s ATP decision, and they are calling for the current order to be set aside and reassigned to an impartial, unaligned decision-maker. Speaking on the pair’s behalf to the court, lead defense counsel Fyard Hosein clarified that the challenge does not seek to block the extradition process entirely, only to ensure it is overseen by a decision-maker free from perceived political prejudice.

When questioned by CCJ Judge Peter Jamadar on whether remitting the ATP decision to an independent alternative official would resolve their concerns, Hosein confirmed that this outcome would be acceptable. He further added that the defense would not object to the ATP being issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions or a Permanent Secretary, so long as the new decision-maker is free of bias and follows all applicable legal protocols.

The two businessmen are scheduled to stand trial in a Florida federal court on charges of mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering tied to their gold trading operations. Prior to their appeal to the CCJ, they have already unsuccessfully challenged Walrond’s ATP before Guyana’s magistrate court, High Court, and local Court of Appeal. The Mohameds argue that Walrond, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, and Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo made public statements labeling them as criminals and attacking them long before the ATP was issued, because the pair are known political opponents of the current administration.

During the hearing, Justice Chile Eboe-Asuji noted that the regional court had reviewed social media recordings of statements made by one of the Mohameds accusing the Guyanese government of corruption. He raised the question of what the pair could reasonably expect from government officials after such open provocation. In response, Hosein pushed back, emphasizing that the court’s focus must remain on the bias of the decision-maker, not political tensions between the parties.

CCJ President Dr. Winston Anderson raised a key procedural question: if the current Home Affairs Minister delegated the ATP authority to another cabinet minister, would the risk of bias not still persist. Defense counsel Roysdale Forde responded that the Fugitive Offenders Act explicitly permits delegation of this responsibility to a non-ministerial public officer, which would resolve that concern. Forde echoed earlier arguments from Hosein, noting that senior government officials including Jagdeo and Nandlall had made public comments about the extradition months before the ATP was ultimately issued on 30 October 2025 — just one day before the Mohameds were arrested and brought before the court.

Forde stressed that the case hinges on protection of fundamental legal rights, explaining that raising the bias challenge after the magistrate issues a ruling on committal, during the habeas corpus phase, would have resulted in unreasonable delay for the pair.

Representing the government of Guyana, attorney Douglas Mendes argued that the Mohameds had already waived their right to challenge the minister’s authority on bias grounds. Mendes noted that the pair sent two formal letters to the Home Affairs Minister, on 6 October and 13 October 2025, well before the ATP was issued, while already aware that an extradition request was pending. Mendes explained that extradition processes inherently include an executive, or high political, component, and the Home Affairs Minister holds statutory discretion to issue or deny the ATP, as well as the final extradition order.

Mendes contended that a member of the executive cabinet must be involved in the ATP decision, rather than delegating the authority to a non-political public officer, who would lack the ability to exercise required political judgment and be held accountable to parliament. If bias against the current minister were confirmed, Mendes argued that the only appropriate remedy would be for the President to reassign the portfolio or appoint an acting Home Affairs Minister temporarily, rather than delegating to a public officer. He added that even if bias were proven, the Mohameds are not entitled to any additional relief, as the court system already has mechanisms to address bias claims through the judicial phase of the process.

Appearing personally before the court, Attorney General Anil Nandlall argued that fair trial principles do not apply to extradition committal proceedings, since no formal criminal charges have been brought in Guyana. This position was immediately questioned by Justice Arif Bulkan, who requested legal authorities to support the claim in light of Guyana’s constitutional guarantee of a fair hearing. Nandlall pushed back, noting that politicians may hold personal biases but can still act fairly and in compliance with the law, adding that the government’s only bias is in favor of its policy of processing legally complete extradition requests once all statutory criteria are met.

At the close of the hearing, CCJ President Winston Anderson announced that no decision date has been set, and the existing interim stay on the magistrate court’s committal proceedings will remain in effect. He reiterated that the court is fully aware of the need to resolve extradition cases in a timely manner.

On Monday, April 20, 2026, Guyanese President Irfaan Ali publicly pushed back against fierce opposition criticism of his administration’s controversial move to seize control of more than 50 major roads in Georgetown from the city’s elected Mayor and City Council, dismissing accusations that the power grab amounts to authoritarian overreach. Speaking at the official opening of the upgraded Aubrey Barker Road — a key corridor now extended from Mandela Avenue to the Ogle/Eccles bypass — Ali did not shy away from laying out his ruling party’s clear political ambitions ahead of upcoming Local Government Elections, expected to be held later this year.

The President openly confirmed that the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPP/C) is aiming to win a majority of the 30 available City Council seats, stating that his party’s intentions have never been ambiguous. “Yes, I’m interested in seeing a People’s Progressive Party Civic-led city council. I’m interested in seeing strong government, strong leadership at the City Hall so don’t guess what I’m saying. My intentions are clear and the intentions of the PPP Civic are clear as ever. We want a chance to run this city because the city deserves better than what it has today,” Ali told attendees at the commissioning event.

The opposition bloc A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has repeatedly argued that the road takeover is a politically motivated power play, pointing out that Georgetown has long been an opposition stronghold that does not favor the PPP/C. Ali pushed back forcefully against these claims, setting out what he framed as a purely development-focused rationale for the policy shift. “Let me set the record straight. We’re not taking roads for politics. We are designating roads as public roads in the cause of progress. We have no political interest in dispossessing any entity,” he told the assembled crowd.

Under the new designation, the rehabilitated Aubrey Barker Road will now fall under the management and maintenance purview of Guyana’s Ministry of Public Works, rather than remaining under city council control. Ali emphasized that this change was necessary to prevent the roadway from falling into the same state of disrepair that plagues dozens of other city streets under current municipal management. Rejecting claims that the move is politically motivated, the President framed the central government’s intervention as a responsible approach to governance that puts public needs above partisan gain. “We’re not playing politics with potholes. We’re not campaigning with congestion. We’re not grandstanding with gridlock. We’re governing and governing requires responsibility,” he said.

Ali laid out a long-term vision to transform Georgetown into the most dynamic and well-developed city in the Caribbean, noting that this goal depends on modern, reliable infrastructure that can keep pace with rapid growth. He explained that the surge in vehicle ownership across the capital has created urgent demand for upgraded road networks that boost traffic safety and support higher economic productivity, a need the current municipal administration has failed to meet. “It’s not merely to transfer responsibility but is to accelerate modernisation under our national development agenda,” he added, confirming that the designation of more than 50 Georgetown roads as public roads follows this same development-focused logic.

The President also announced plans to expand central government intervention beyond road management, in the wake of a recent poorly executed national clean-up campaign that left much of Georgetown’s drainage network clogged with silt, overgrown vegetation and discarded solid waste. Ali said the central government would take over drainage and flood control responsibility from the City Council, dismissing the ongoing partisan blame game and promising sustained action with public support. “I am not interested in this blame game. If they don’t want to open the koker and if they don’t want to maintain the drain, we will show the people of this city we’re ready to do it and with their support, we will do it continuously,” he said.

For context, Georgetown’s City Council has argued for decades that its ability to deliver basic services has been systematically undermined by central government policy. Dating all the way back to 1994, municipal leaders have complained that the central government has repeatedly blocked the council from accessing critical new revenue streams — including revenue from a municipal lottery, littering fines, waste-to-energy projects, and adjusted property rates and taxes — that would allow it to properly fund infrastructure maintenance and public service operations.

In a developing case out of Guyana’s East Coast Demerara region, a serving police sergeant assigned to the Cove and John Police Station has been taken into custody following the mysterious disappearance of a large cache of firearms and ammunition from the station’s secure arms room, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.

The missing inventory includes four 9mm pistols, three .32 caliber handguns, and 68 rounds of live ammunition. The discrepancy was first uncovered during a routine check of the station’s stored weapons and evidence on Wednesday, April 15, 2026. When initial searches failed to turn up the missing items, an official alert was issued up the department’s established chain of command.

According to a public statement released by the Guyana Police Force, preliminary investigations confirm the disappearance came to light during a scheduled audit of firearms and held exhibits at the facility. The force’s Office of Professional Responsibility has since launched a full internal investigation into the incident, marking one of the most serious internal security breaches involving law enforcement weapons in the region in recent years.

As the probe progresses, investigators have already collected multiple witness statements and pulled relevant administrative records related to access and inventory tracking for the arms room. The Guyana Police Force emphasized in its statement that it is deploying every necessary investigative and operational resource to locate and recover all missing firearms and ammunition, noting that the gravity of the incident is not being understated.
“The matter is being treated with the seriousness it warrants, and all appropriate action will be taken in accordance with the law and established procedures,” the statement read, in a public assurance to Guyanese citizens concerned about unregistered weapons entering illegal circulation.

The arrest of the serving sergeant marks a significant development in the early stages of the investigation, though officials have not yet released further details about the sergeant’s alleged connection to the missing cache or any potential suspects that may still be at large. For communities across East Coast Demerara, the incident has raised urgent questions about inventory security protocols at local law enforcement facilities, as police work to trace the missing weapons before they can be used in criminal activity.