‘AG dead wrong’ – Lawyer says Nandlall misquoted extradition treaty to justify dropping Mohamed’s tax case

Nov 14, 2025 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Attorney-at-Law Vivian Williams has accused Attorney General Anil Nandlall of misrepresenting Guyana’s Extradition Treaty to justify the controversial withdrawal of the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) tax case against the Mohameds.

Speaking on the Caribbean Tea programme on Tuesday, Williams declared that Article 4 of the treaty does not permit governments to halt or adjust domestic proceedings to facilitate extradition, directly contradicting the AG’s public explanation last week. “The Attorney General is absolutely wrong… Article 4 says nothing about adjusting your proceedings. In fact, it places a duty on the State to complete its trials and penalties before deferring to another sovereign,” Williams asserted, quoting the treaty word for word.

Williams said Guyana’s withdrawal of the GRA case amounts to “outsourcing justice” to the United States, a move he called a violation of both the letter and spirit of the extradition agreement. He warned that abandoning active prosecutions could bar Guyana from ever reopening those cases, weakening its sovereign standing. “If the charges are withdrawn with prejudice, that’s the end of it,” he cautioned. “The U.S. would never yield jurisdiction like that why should Guyana?” Williams argued that sovereignty demands Guyana prosecute its own citizens fully before cooperating on extradition, not retreat in deference to foreign powers.

Meanwhile, speaking to the Department of Public Information of Friday last during an interview Nandlall had justified withdrawing the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) tax case against the Mohameds saying that “It is an accepted and well-established principle of extradition law that domestic arrangements sometimes have to be adjusted to facilitate extradition. All countries are required to do it. It is part of our treaty. The charges could not proceed here while an extradition request was active for the same or related offences.”

However, Williams has argued that his comments could be easily addressed if the treaty is read. “Article 4 says that the extradition shall not take place if the person claimed has already been tried and discharged or punished or is still under trial in the territories of the high contracting party applied to for the crime or offense which extradition is demanded. And secondly, if the person claimed should be under examination or under punishment in the territories of the high contracting party applied to for any other crime or offense, his extradition shall be deferred until the conclusion of the trial and the full execution of any punishment awarded to him,” he quoted.

In this light he told viewers and his cohosts that, “The attorney general is absolutely wrong and I am going exactly off of article 4 which he refers.” The attorney explained that in Article 4 a duty is placed on the sovereign country to ensure that matters at home are taken care of before one can actually send anyone or “defer to another sovereign as part of any committee. It does not say that you will adjust your proceedings.” Williams highlighted that pending proceedings before the courts should not be withdrawn in order to outsource justice to another sovereign.

The GRA last week and on Wednesday this week withdrew several tax-related cases against the Mohameds. Late last month the GRA had accused the Mohameds, owners of Mohamed’s Enterprise, of massive underreporting of income between 2019 and 2023, resulting in billions of dollars in unpaid taxes. In a letter dated October 2, 2025, the GRA demanded payment of taxes arising from $34 billion in understated income declarations for the same period. With accumulated interest and penalties, the total amount owed to the State reportedly stood at more than $191 billion. Formal tax evasion charges were subsequently filed on October 24.

Extradition law services

When the matter was called last week Thursday before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty, the court was informed that the GRA had withdrawn all charges related to tax evasion. The prosecutor did not initially provide a reason for the withdrawal, and Magistrate McGusty accepted the GRA’s decision, resulting in the dismissal of the case. The Mohameds were represented by attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien Da Silva.

Shortly after the court proceedings, the GRA issued a public statement explaining its decision. The agency noted that it had received legal advice to withdraw the case in light of the Government of Guyana’s decision to proceed with the U.S. extradition request. “In light of this extradition request and Government of Guyana’s decision to proceed with the said extradition request, and taking into account all relevant legal principles, including international comity, appropriateness and fairness, these charges were withdrawn and discontinued,” the GRA stated. Nandlall, had emphasised that the GRA still retains full authority to recover all outstanding taxes owed by the Mohameds. “For the avoidance of doubt, extradition apart, the State of Guyana retains its full plenitude of legal powers to secure all taxes due, owing and payable, and intends to do so, in accordance with law,” he said.

On Thursday the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) followed in the footsteps of the GRA when it discontinued the criminal charges filed against Azruddin Mohamed over alleged unpaid taxes for the importation of his Lamborghini. The decision the DPP Chambers said in a press release is as a result of the formal extradition request from the Government of the United States of America. In a statement issued on Wednesday, the DPP’s Chambers confirmed that the charges, which were brought by the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) on May 15, 2025, were withdrawn under Article 187(1)(c) of the Constitution of Guyana.

Mohamed had faced two offences: 1. Causing a false declaration to be made to the Revenue Authority, contrary to Section 217(1)(a) of the Customs Act, Chapter 82:01. 2. Knowingly engaging in fraudulent evasion, contrary to Section 218(e) of the same Act.

According to the DPP, the decision to discontinue the charges was made “in light of the extradition request and the hearing of the said extradition request, and taking into account all relevant legal principles, including international comity, appropriateness, and fairness to the defendant.” The DPP explained that the GRA’s charges were filed before Guyana received the extradition request from the U.S. Government seeking Mohamed’s surrender. Mohamed was facing charges of false declaration and tax evasion, stemming from the alleged underreporting of the purchase price of a luxury vehicle imported in 2020. According to the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA), Mohamed fraudulently declared that a Lamborghini Roadster SVJ, which had an actual cost of USD $695,000, was purchased for only USD $75,300. The false declaration allegedly resulted in tax evasion amounting to G$383 million.

---

• AG, Caribbean Tea, Extradition Treaty, GRA, Mohameds, tax case

---