US-sanctioned & indicted Mohameds seek stop of extradition again

United States (US) sanctioned and indicted Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, are once again seeking to suspend the extradition proceedings against them as they challenge aspects of a February High Court ruling concerning the constitutionality of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act.

The father and son returned to the Court of Appeal (CoA) of Guyana on Wednesday, asking the appellate court to stay the proceedings before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts until their substantive appeal is heard and determined. Their application arises from a ruling by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who found in February that Section 8(3)(B) of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act is inconsistent with the Constitution of Guyana, while upholding the constitutionality of the other provisions challenged by the Mohameds.

Previous attempts by the Mohameds to halt the extradition proceedings before Chief Magistrate Judy Latchman, the High Court and the CoA were unsuccessful, with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) later granting an interim stay that was discharged after it dismissed their appeal in July.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, who represents the father and son, asked the CoA to intervene before the Magistrates’ Courts proceedings progress further. Forde told the three-member panel, comprising Acting Chancellor of the Judiciary Justice Roxane George, SC, Justice of Appeal Rishi Persaud and Justice of Appeal Nareshwar Harnanan, that his clients were not asking the court to determine the substantive appeal at this stage. Instead, he argued that interim protection was necessary to ensure that the appeal could be meaningfully heard and that his clients’ liberty would not be affected before the constitutional questions are resolved. Forde expressed concern that the Magistrates’ Court could rely on what he described as “erroneous determinations” contained in the High Court ruling when continuing the extradition proceedings. He also referred to amendments made to the Fugitive Offenders Act, arguing that those changes could influence the proceedings before the substantive appeal is determined. The constitutional challenge centres on parts of Section 8(3)(A) and 8(3)(B) of the legislation.

The State opposed the application. Attorney General (AG) and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, urged the Court of Appeal to allow the extradition proceedings to continue without interruption. In making his case, Nandlall pointed to a recent decision of the CCJ involving the Mohameds.

The CCJ had dismissed an earlier appeal brought by the father and son concerning the validity of an Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by the Home Affairs Minister under the Fugitive Offenders Act. In that earlier matter, the Mohameds challenged the ATP issued by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond, arguing that the decision to initiate their extradition proceedings had been tainted by political bias.
The AG’s reliance on that decision formed part of the State’s argument against stopping the Magistrates’ Court proceedings while the latest appeal is pending.

The Court of Appeal did not determine the substantive constitutional appeal on Wednesday. Instead, after hearing arguments from both sides, Justice George indicated that the court intends to issue orders and directions today concerning the appeal. The development comes ahead of the scheduled resumption of the extradition proceedings before Chief Magistrate Latchman next Thursday, September 3. The Mohameds are seeking an urgent hearing of their appeal in addition to the requested stay, meaning the CoA’s forthcoming directions could determine whether the extradition proceedings proceed as scheduled or are paused pending the outcome of the constitutional challenge.

Azruddin Mohamed and his father, businessman Nazar Mohamed, are facing extradition proceedings in Guyana after the US formally requested their surrender in October 2025. A US federal grand jury in Florida indicted the two men on allegations including wire and mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and customs violations linked to an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax-evasion scheme. US prosecutors allege that the men evaded taxes and royalties on more than 10,000 kilograms (kg) of gold through falsified customs declarations and reused export seals. They have denied the allegations. The US is seeking their extradition so they can face prosecution on those federal charges.