–as lawyers clash over extradition

ARGUMENTS over an application to halt extradition proceedings involving businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed, were sharply contested on Tuesday before Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh at the High Court in Demerara.
The Mohameds are requesting that the extradition proceedings be stayed until the judge resolves the constitutional issues raised in their case.
Attorneys-at-law in the case offered starkly different interpretations of the law in comments to reporters following the hearing.
Speaking after the hearing, Attorney General and Senior Counsel Anil Nandlall said his submissions focused on what he described as the settled legal framework governing extradition in Guyana.
Nandlall placed significant reliance on key judicial decisions, particularly Justice Jo-Ann Barlow’s ruling in Marvin Williams (aka Troy Thomas) v The Commissioner of Police, The Director of Public Prosecutions and The Attorney General.
He highlighted that the decision in this case echoed the Court of Appeal’s earlier findings in King v The Director of Prisons et al.
According to the Attorney General, extradition in Guyana is governed by an existing treaty and the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act, which “sets out in detail the procedure to be followed when an extradition request is made.”
He said the applicants are challenging aspects of the extradition framework, issues which he noted were already raised and rejected before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman.
Magistrate Latchman is conducting the extradition proceedings pursuant to an Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond.
“They have repeated the very issues before this court,” Nandlall said, adding that the policy underpinning extradition law is that it is meant to be “a swift international process between two governments.”
He stressed that extradition proceedings, by design, are not intended to be bogged down by prolonged litigation.
“Extradition process, by its very nature, is not intended to be embroiled in legal processes,” he said, noting that Guyana’s law, like that of “almost every country,” sets out specific avenues for challenges.
Nandlall outlined that once a magistrate conducts the committal hearing, the law provides remedies depending on the outcome.
“If the magistrate discharges the accused persons, the State has a right to challenge that ruling, and then the State has a right to appeal,” he explained.
Conversely, he added that if the magistrate orders committal, the affected persons may challenge the decision through habeas corpus, followed by an appeal, during which the law itself provides an automatic stay on extradition.
SIDE SHOWS
“Clearly, the policy of the law and the intent of the process is not to entertain these side shows and these collateral challenges,” Nandlall said, describing the present application for a stay as “an abuse of the process.”
He further asserted that the law does not contemplate appeals against a magistrate’s refusal to entertain constitutional arguments at that stage.
“Once the magistrate rejects those arguments, the next step is for the magistrate to be allowed to proceed, not to come back to the High Court,” he said.
The Attorney General also took issue with what he described as the Mohameds’ stated intention to delay proceedings.
“It is the express intention of one of the applicants [Azruddin] that the process will be delayed for five years…,” he said, characterising the arguments raised as “frivolous and vexatious.”
Nandlall told reporters that for a stay to be granted, applicants must demonstrate serious and meritorious issues. He said he examined each of the challenges raised to the 2009 amendments to the extradition law, walking the court through them “word for word” to demonstrate what he described as misinterpretation.
“The truth of the matter is that they will get that opportunity at the end of the magistrate’s court’s ruling,” he said, adding that the applicants would not suffer prejudice since extradition cannot occur until all statutory remedies are exhausted.
He questioned the urgency of staying the magistrate’s proceedings, noting that the substantive constitutional matter is expected to be heard shortly.
“They are not going to be put on a plane tomorrow or the next day,” he said.
Nandlall argued that the greater prejudice would be suffered by the State if proceedings are delayed.
“It is the State of Guyana that will be frustrated in exercising its right to reciprocate at the international level,” he said, pointing to treaty obligations and the doctrine of comity among nations.
He warned that allowing court processes to be used to delay extradition would undermine the system entirely.
“If Guyana is not able to extradite efficiently, and if the court system will be used as an obstacle and as a mechanism for delay,” he said, the country itself would suffer.
The Attorney General also criticised parallel proceedings alleging governmental bias, warning of the implications if such claims were allowed to halt extradition.
“It means that once a person enters into politics, they can’t be extradited anymore,” he said, calling that outcome untenable.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who represents the Mohameds, in his response to the Attorney General’s arguments, said the defence relied on a substantial body of case law to support its position that challenges need not wait until the end of committal proceedings.
“There is a significant body of law dealing with the fact that you do not have to wait until the end of a committal process to be able to challenge them,” he said, citing cases from Trinidad and Belize.
Forde argued that the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act are unconstitutional because they confer excessive power on the Minister of Home Affairs, undermine judicial independence by directing courts toward predetermined conclusions, and bar extraditees from challenging illegalities in the extradition arrangements, thereby infringing fundamental rights.
These constitutional challenges, including objections to Sections 8(3)(a) and 8(3)(b) and concerns over re-extradition safeguards, were rejected by Magistrate Latchman, who ruled that the 2009 amendments are constitutional and that the issues raised had already been settled by local judicial decisions.
She further held that the arguments did not warrant referral to the High Court at the committal stage and did not impede the continuation of the extradition proceedings.
Forde warned of the prejudice his clients could face if proceedings continue. “My clients would have gone through a process… being in prison and go through all sorts of indignities,” he said, particularly if the legislation is later ruled unconstitutional.
Pointing to systemic delays in extradition matters, Forde questioned what he described as the urgency surrounding this case.
“What is the peculiar excitement and urgency to deny them a fair judicial process to have these matters ventilated?” he asked, expressing confidence that the court would ultimately rule in his clients’ favour.
Apart from seeking a stay, the Mohameds are challenging the Authority to Proceed that initiated their extradition, arguing it is void, legally null, and violates the rule of natural justice.
They are also seeking to have the Authority to Proceed quashed, a declaration that Ministers Walrond and Nandlall cannot take part in its issuance, and an order preventing the Ministers from any further involvement in their extradition on the grounds of both presumed and apparent bias.
The Acting Chief Justice is expected to rule on the application for a stay after considering the competing submissions. The ruling is scheduled for Monday.
Magistrate Latchman had previously set January 6 and 7, 2026, to begin hearing evidence in the extradition proceedings.
In dismissing the Mohamed’s referral request: Magistrate Latchman had declared: “This court is not about to resurrect what has been put to rest. Having judiciously examined all the issues leveled by the defence and the request for a referral to be triggered, this court sees no basis to activate the referral article [Article 153(3) of the Constitution], since it is guided by the principles of stare decisis…”
The Mohameds—owners of Mohamed’s Enterprise—remain on $150,000 bail each, have surrendered their passports, and must report weekly to the Ruimveldt Police Station as the extradition proceedings continue. They were taken into custody on October 31 following a United States request for their extradition.
U.S. prosecutors have accused the father and son of running an international criminal network with alleged links to high offices in Venezuela and the Middle East, claims Forde has rejected.
The pair face 11 criminal counts in the U.S. Southern District of Florida involving alleged wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and customs violations tied to what authorities describe as a massive US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme.
The U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned both men in June 2024 for alleged gold smuggling and public corruption.
The U.S. investigation dates back to the mid-2010s and involved multiple agencies, including the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Department of Homeland Security.
Azruddin heads We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), the party that finished as the runner-up in the 2025 general and regional elections.