–AG on U.S. extradition request for indicted Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed

ATTORNEY-General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandall, S.C., has rejected claims of political persecution by U.S.-indicted businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar ‘Shell’ Mohamed, stating that the ongoing extradition proceedings against the father-and-son duo are rooted firmly in the law and international treaty obligations, not political influence.
The AG, during a televised interview on Friday evening with the State media, dismissed what he described as “volumes of misinformation, inaccurate information, and political propaganda” circulating online since the United States (U.S.) Department of Justice requested the extradition of the Mohameds.
The Mohameds are facing 11 charges of fraud and money laundering related to gold smuggling, and were indicted in a Florida court by a grand jury in October. The indictment followed sanctions by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in 2024.
“These proceedings in process would have been concretely realised when the OFAC sanctions were imposed. Any sensible person would have detected that those sanctions were not imposed in isolation, but were part of a process, and the other aspects of the process will be unfolding later. They are now being unfolded,” Nandlall said.
The extradition request by the U.S. government was made on October 30, and the businessmen were arrested the following day. They appeared at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court the same day, and were each granted $150,000 bail, ordered to surrender their Guyanese passports, and report to the Ruimveldt Police Station every Friday between 13:00 and 15:00 hours, starting November 7, 2025.
During Friday’s hearing, which was before Senior Magistrate Judy Latchman, the Mohameds’ lawyers, Siand Dhurjon, Nigel Hughes, Darren Wade and Roysdale Forde, argued that the extradition request was unconstitutional, outside of the court’s jurisdiction, and involved non-extraditable offences such as wire and mail fraud.
The Attorney-General rejected the argument, noting that the principle of dual criminality — which requires that an offence be recognised in both countries — is well established in law, and was satisfied in the case against the Mohameds.
“I will not assume that those high offices in the United States’ justice system and legal system are afflicted with such incompetence and inefficiency that Mr. Marco Rubio [U.S. Secretary of State] is going to put his signature on a document, and the attorney-general would advise him to do so without checking the most elementary issue of extradition law,” Nandlall said, noting that on Guyana’s end, the relevant legal authorities also heavily scrutinised the documents.
“The authority to proceed was signed by the Minister of Home Affairs, who is the statutory authorised signatory to that document. It was prepared. I heard them (defence team) say that it was defective. Well, the Fugitive Offenders Act has forms in the schedule of the Act, and these forms contain precedents or specimens of what these documents ought to look like. And over the years, these are the forms that have been used. And obviously, not only did we look at past such documents, but we corresponded them with the form that is in the law, and they coincide,” the AG said.
The other argument advanced by the Mohameds’ legalteam was unconstitutionality, to which Nandall said: “It is sexy to allege unconstitutionality. People do it all the time. Sometimes it doesn’t even involve the constitution.”
He further stated that a provision in the Constitution states that if constitutional issues are raised in criminal proceedings before the magistrate, then the person who is making these allegations must invite the magistrate either to rule on it or to refer it to the High Court for determination.
“They didn’t do that,” he said.
Nandall explained that the case, which has been adjourned to November 10, will see the State disclosing documents received from the U.S. government. The magistrate will then determine whether there is sufficient evidence for committal.
“I just want the public to appreciate that this is a legal process, and I hope that I have clarified a lot of issues, and that there is a deliberate attempt to politicize what is clearly a non-political process, and that there is no ulterior motive, at least on the part of the government that I added in relation to this process, it is what we are duty bound to do, on the law and what we are committed to do,” the AG said.
‘Nothing extraordinary about an extradition request’
According to the Attorney-General, over the years, treaties have been executed to put the extradition process in place between and among nations, and statutory processes have been established in individual countries to regulate and govern how this process must unfold.
Guyana has had extradition on its statute books since 1883. As such, Nandlall noted that the political persecution narrative by the Mohameds is being constructed to be “self-serving, politically expedient”, and convenient to those who wish to put that rhetoric out there.
“There was nothing extraordinary that was done by the Government of Guyana in relation to this process. It has nothing to do with politics. We said openly that whether the request comes or it doesn’t come, or if it comes and the gentleman is in the parliament, his presence in the parliament, or his status as a member of parliament, does not insulate him or immunise him from legal liability of a criminal kind in relation to the extradition process.”
Nandall firmly stated that the Government of Guyana has no control whatsoever in relation to an extradition request and to suggest otherwise is “fanciful thinking,” noting: “We don’t control the workings of the United States Government and the Mohameds know full well that this was coming. They knew that it was supposed to come earlier.”
He added, “The American government is requesting their presence in the jurisdiction of the United States of America to answer those charges. Where is the politics in that? The Government of Guyana is duty bound, under its treaty obligations and under international law to accede to requests for extradition and we have stated openly that we will discharge those obligations, faithfully and in accordance with law and in a manner that ensures that there is due process and the recognition of the constitutional rights of any Guyanese implicated, and that has been the position of successive governments of Guyana.”