–as Chief Justice dismisses application for stay; ruling clears way for magistrate to commence committal proceedings today

THE High Court in Demerara has refused an application seeking to stay extradition proceedings for United States (US)-sanctioned businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed.
The father and son are fighting extradition to the US, where they face serious indictments for financial crimes, including money laundering.
The ruling, delivered on Monday by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, comes after the pair challenged the constitutionality of provisions in the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009, arguing that the law permitted executive overreach in extradition matters.
The matter arose from a formal request by the United States Government to Guyana seeking the extradition of the Mohameds to face trial on federal indictments returned by a grand jury.
The request was made under the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain. The Guyana Police Force (GPF) arrested the men on October 31, 2025.
Acting Chief Justice Singh noted, “It is apparent that the Minister of Home Affairs [Oneidge Walrond] issued the requisite Authority to Proceed.”
An Authority to Proceed in extradition is a formal ministerial approval confirming that a foreign request meets legal requirements, and signalling the transition of the matter from the executive or political level to the judicial process for committal proceedings.

Following their arrest, Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed were brought before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman in accordance with Section 15 of the Fugitive Offenders Act.
They were subsequently released on $150,000 bail, each, pending committal proceedings. The legal framework governing extradition in Guyana is the Fugitive Offenders Act of 1988, as amended by the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009.
The Mohameds initially requested that Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman refer their constitutional concerns to the High Court under Article 153 (3) of the Constitution. However, the Magistrate declined to do so, finding the questions “frivolous and vexatious”.
Subsequently, they moved to the High Court seeking an order to stay the committal proceedings pending the court’s determination of the same constitutional issues previously raised before the magistrate. Their High Court application was heard on December 30, 2025.
In his ruling, Justice Singh underscored the principle of constitutional supremacy, stating that “by Article 8 of the Constitution, the Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana, and therefore the Court must ensure that ordinary statutory proceedings do not override constitutional provisions.”
He clarified, however, that supremacy of the Constitution does not equate to an automatic suspension of statutory proceedings.
“It is firmly established that the mere institution of constitutional proceedings does not operate as an automatic stay of parallel criminal or extradition proceedings,” Justice Singh said, adding that “the grant of a stay in extradition matters is exceptional, not routine”.
FACTORS CONSIDERED
Justice Singh considered three main factors in assessing the application, namely: Whether the constitutional challenge raised a serious and arguable issue, whether proceeding without a stay would cause irreparable prejudice, and whether the balance of convenience favoured intervention.
Regarding the seriousness of the constitutional challenge, the applicants argued that the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009 unconstitutionally authorised the Minister to bypass the judiciary and the committal process.
They claimed that Sections 3(A)(a) and 3(A)(b) vested executive control over extradition, thereby breaching the Separation of Powers doctrine.
Justice Singh rejected this interpretation, noting that “on a basic reading of Section 3(A)(a), the section seems to simply provide that a person may be committed to or kept in custody for the purpose of extradition if the minister considers it necessary in the interest of justice.”
He further stated, “Section 3(A)(b) simply provides certain factors that the minister may take into account in determining whether the extradition proceedings should be permitted in the interest of justice.”
The Acting Chief Justice emphasised that these provisions must be interpreted in the context of the entire Fugitive Offenders Act, which clearly outlines the procedures for extradition in Guyana.
He highlighted that the minister’s authority only extends to determining whether assurances provided by the requesting state are satisfactory, allowing extradition proceedings to proceed under law.
Justice Singh stated, “The minister…is simply determining if they are satisfied with the circumstances presented, and, if so, may permit the extradition process to move forward under the laws of Guyana.”
Crucially, he pointed out that there is no allegation that the minister attempted to bypass any judicial process in relation to the Mohameds.
Another aspect of the constitutional challenge concerned the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United States and Great Britain.
The Mohameds contended that the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act impermissibly sought to remedy omissions in the Treaty, such as the absence of an express guarantee against onward extradition to a third state.
Justice Singh, however, found that “the Applicants [the Mohameds] have not highlighted which safeguard in the Treaty is being violated by the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009.”
He concluded that upon examining Article 7 of the Treaty, “the Court is not convinced that the Treaty does not, by implication, provide assurance against further extradition by the requesting country [the United States of America]”.
According to him, the lack of an express clause does not automatically mean that protection is absent.

Justice Singh noted that the Attorney- General had produced written assurances from the United States confirming that the applicants would not be extradited to a third state without the consent of the Government of Guyana. He held that, in the circumstances, this did not constitute a serious issue for determination.
The court also addressed claims related to Section 3(B)(c) of the Amendment Act, which the applicants argued limited their ability to seek redress in Guyanese courts.
Justice Singh clarified that “on the face of it, the provision relates to extradition ‘arrangements’ as opposed to the extradition process,” adding that the applicants had acknowledged that they could challenge any committal through habeas corpus proceedings.
He concluded that these arguments were “not a serious issue to be determined” at the interlocutory stage, describing the claims as “abstract and speculative”.
On the question of potential prejudice, Justice Singh noted that extradition proceedings are preliminary inquiries rather than criminal trials. They are designed to determine whether statutory requirements for surrender are met, rather than to establish guilt or innocence.
He observed, “The applicants will have further opportunities to invoke further judicial review and habeas corpus protections prior to surrender, therefore there is no risk of surrender or removal before the constitutional issues are resolved.”
Finally, the court assessed the balance of convenience between the applicants’ interests and the public interest. Justice Singh highlighted the importance of upholding Guyana’s international obligations and maintaining confidence in the administration of justice.
“The public interest would be undermined if extradition proceedings could be routinely stayed by the filing of constitutional motions raising issues capable of later resolution,” he stated.
He noted that the applicants were on bail and that the constitutional challenges could proceed without halting extradition proceedings.
“In assessing the balance of convenience, it seems that a stay of proceedings is a drastic remedy in the circumstances presented to the Court, where the constitutional issue/s can be determined without halting the extradition process, and no immediate and irreversible harm has been demonstrated,” Justice Singh concluded.
HIGH COURT DENIES STAY
In summation, the High Court refused the application for a stay of extradition proceedings filed on December 22, 2025.
Justice Singh clarified that while the Mohameds are entitled to pursue their constitutional challenge, they “have not met the high threshold required for the interim relief sought,” and noted that constitutional litigation “must serve as a shield for fundamental rights, not as a sword to paralyse lawful statutory processes absent compelling necessity.”
“The applicants have not established that allowing the committal proceedings to continue will cause irreparable harm. No surrender order is presently imminent.
“The Magistrate’s proceedings are preliminary in nature and may result in discharge and even if committal occurs, the applicants retain the right to challenge any surrender order before execution of that order,” Acting Chief Justice Singh declared.
Costs in the case were ordered, as the substantive constitutional application is scheduled to be heard on January 14, 2026.
The ruling now enables Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman to begin the committal proceedings today, which will decide whether the father and son can be formally extradited to the United States to face the pending indictments.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, along with attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva, represented the Mohameds.
Attorney-General Anil Nandlall, SC; Solicitor-General Nigel Hawke; Deputy Solicitor-General Shoshanna Lall, and attorney Dishon Persaud appeared for the respondent, the Attorney-General.
ATTORNEY-GENERAL WELCOMES RULING
Nandlall welcomed the High Court’s decision, noting that the ruling reaffirmed the established legal principle that committal proceedings should not be delayed by pre-emptive constitutional challenges.
He emphasised that such challenges can and should be addressed after a committal order, cautioning that attempts to stay proceedings beforehand risk being considered an abuse of process. Nandlall stressed that the extradition process involves multiple judicial safeguards and is not automatic.
Speaking on the application filed by the Mohameds, Nandlall said it is an interlocutory matter that seek to “delay and protract” the committal hearing from taking place.
“And the courts have universally and uniformly rejected any type of intervention that seeks to stay, stop, or delay the committal hearing from taking place,” he noted.
The Mohameds’ legal team expressed disappointment in Acting Chief Justice Singh’s ruling and signaled their intention to appeal to the Full Court as soon as today [Monday], and, if required, to take the case further to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
The Mohameds—owners of Mohamed’s Enterprise—remain on bail, have surrendered their passports, and must report weekly to the Ruimveldt Police Station as the extradition proceedings continue.
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.
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 US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme.
The US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned both men in June 2024 for alleged gold smuggling and public corruption.
The US 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.