‘Mohameds’ extradition battle heats up’ – defence claims 2009 law unconstitutional

Dec 09, 2025 News

---

…court to decide if issues should be heard in High Court

(Kaieteur News) – The extradition case involving Nazir Mohamed and his son, WIN party leader Azruddin Mohamed continued on Monday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, with both defence and prosecution presenting oral arguments regarding whether constitutional issues should be addressed by the High Court before proceeding with the extradition matter.

The father and son, along with their defence attorneys—Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon, and Rajeev Persad—appeared before Senior Magistrate Judy Latchman. Special prosecutor Terrence Williams, KC, represented the State.

During the proceedings, the defence argued that constitutional issues surrounding the 2009 amendments to the extradition laws should be addressed before the extradition itself could proceed. Specifically, they challenged the legality of the amendments and requested that the issues be referred to the High Court for resolution.

Forde, speaking for the defence, stated that citizens have the constitutional right to clarity regarding laws governing extradition. He emphasised that the amendments made in 2009, which expanded the powers of the Minister of Home Affairs, may violate constitutional rights. Forde told reporters, “The arguments today centred around the unconstitutionality of the amendments made in 2009. We believe that we have presented our arguments clearly, showing the potential unconstitutionality and the basis for referral to the High Court.” He further explained that the key issue revolves around the minister’s powers to arrest, detain, and extradite citizens without sufficient legal safeguards, adding, “The questions we raised are not frivolous or vexatious. They relate to whether the Minister of Home Affairs has the authority to detain and extradite without clear constitutional and legislative oversight.”

One significant aspect of the defence’s argument was related to Section 8(3)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders Amendment Act of 2009. The defence contended that the extradition arrangement between Guyana and the U.S. is deficient because the treaty lacks a provision ensuring that an individual, once extradited, cannot be re-extradited to a third country without the prior consent of the Government of Guyana. Forde referenced the 2009 amendments and stated, “It is pellucidly clear that the U.S. is a treaty territory, and Section 8(3)(b) prohibits the extradition of any person to the U.S. unless provision has been made to prevent re-extradition to a third country without Guyana’s consent.” The defence argued that the lack of such a provision in the U.S.-Guyana treaty makes any extradition attempt invalid.

In contrast, the prosecution, led by Special Prosecutor Williams, strongly opposed the defence’s constitutional challenge. Williams argued that the constitutional issues raised by the defence were irrelevant to the current proceedings. He declared, “The right does not belong to the citizens, no constitutional rights. This is a case about extradition, and there are no constitutional issues to consider at this time.” According to Williams, the defence’s claims were “frivolous and vexatious,” and there was no need to delay the extradition process by referring constitutional questions to the High Court. He further argued that the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act did not violate any constitutional provisions, and the case should proceed without delay.

The dispute over disclosure was also raised during the court proceedings. The prosecution submitted a diplomatic note from the U.S. government to the court, which the defence opposed. Forde argued that the prosecution had failed to provide complete disclosure of evidence before the proceedings, stating, “We have been trying on each and every occasion to have full disclosure before we respond to whatever is brought into the court. But once again, that did not happen. This new disclosure seeks to remedy the very breach of the legislation.” Forde pointed out that the diplomatic note was trying to address the issue of re-extradition, which, according to a previous ruling, must be addressed within the extradition treaty itself. He further stated, “We are of the view that this document has no legal validity in the context of the legislation.”

The prosecution, however, maintained that the diplomatic note was necessary to clarify the issue of re-extradition. Williams explained that the note addressed concerns raised by the defence and was submitted to the court to assure that the U.S. would not re-extradite the individual to a third country without Guyana’s consent. “It’s an issue that in no way caused specialty which means that the defendants will not be sent to a third state from the requesting state,” Williams said.

Outside the court, Forde expressed confidence in the defence’s arguments, stating, “We have clearly articulated the reasons why these constitutional questions are not frivolous or vexatious. We believe the High Court should hear these issues before we proceed with the extradition.” The defence also emphasised that the issues related to the amendments, the powers of the Minister of Home Affairs, and the court’s authority to interpret the extradition treaty were significant enough to warrant a referral to the High Court.

Magistrate Latchman, after hearing the arguments, granted the defence until Tuesday morning to submit their written response to the prosecution’s latest disclosure. She indicated that her ruling on whether the constitutional issues should be referred to the High Court would be delivered on Wednesday.

On October 30, 2025, the U.S. government formally requested the extradition of the father-and-son duo under the extradition treaty between Guyana and the United States, which remains in force in Guyana under Section 4(1)(a) of the Fugitives Offenders Act, Cap. 10:04, as amended by Act No. 10 of 2024.

The two are facing multiple U.S. charges unsealed on October 6, 2025, by a southern district of Florida grand jury. The indictment includes allegations of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and customs-related violations in connection with an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme.

---

• Azruddin, extradition, Mohamed, Nazar Mohamed

---