Magistrate shuts down Mohameds’ bid to shift extradition case to High Court

Dec 11, 2025 News

---

– says “this court is not about to resurrect what has been put to rest”

(Kaieteur News) – Magistrate Judy Latchman on Wednesday delivered a decisive ruling: the extradition proceedings against businessman Nazir Mohamed and his son, Azruddin, will go on.

She dismissed the defence’s attempt to halt the case by sending multiple constitutional questions to the High Court, ruling that the issues had already been settled by Guyana’s Superior Courts.

The ruling was delivered at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where the Mohameds appeared with their attorneys, along with the prosecution team. The hearing, initially set for 09:00 hrs., was delayed until 11:00 hrs. to allow the defence to present its final submissions. Defence attorneys argued that the extradition should be halted until the court clarifies the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act of 2009, which they claim does not clearly address the issue of re-extradition to a third state. When the matter was eventually called, before a packed courtroom and with We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) supporters gathered outside, Magistrate Latchman dismissed the application, stating that there was “no need to resurrect what was already put to rest.” She emphasised that the core issues raised by the defence regarding the 2009 amendments had already been considered by higher courts and did not require further review.

In outlining her reasons, Magistrate Latchman noted that the defence alleged that several constitutional rights of the Mohameds were under threat, including personal liberty, the right to life, protection of the law, separation of powers, judicial independence, private and family life, freedom of expression, access to the court, freedom of movement, and equality before the law. She also referenced the prosecution’s reliance on a diplomatic note that provided assurances that the Mohameds would not be detained, tried, or prosecuted for any offence other than those forming the basis of the extradition and would be allowed to return to Guyana. However, the Magistrate struck out the note, stating it was not “binding or concrete,” and adding that while diplomatic assurances may shift, treaty obligations are binding and must be performed in good faith. “It is the court’s respectful view that the diplomatic vote is not set in stone, but a treaty arrangement is binding on the partisan and must be performed by the good faith in accordance with the convention of the law,” she said.

Magistrate Latchman further highlighted the prosecution’s argument that the defence’s application was frivolous and vexatious, contrary to statutory and constitutional requirements, and amounted to an abuse of process.

In addressing the defence’s concerns about re-extradition, she relied on previous decisions, including Stephen King and Sobers v. Director of Prisons and the 2017 High Court ruling in the Marvin “Troy” Thomas case. She concluded that “the issues raised by the defence have been adjudicated upon by the supreme courts in Guyana.” She also rejected the defence’s reliance on the Barry Dataram case, noting that it was decided before the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act and was therefore not applicable. Instead, she referenced the Troy Thomas decision, which took the amended legislation into account and addressed the limits and discretion involved in extradition arrangements.

In concluding her ruling, Magistrate Latchman stated that the court was bound by the principle of stare decisis and would not depart from decisions of the Superior Courts. She reiterated, “This court is not about to resurrect what has been put to rest.” Having examined all the issues raised, she determined there was no basis to activate the referral provisions of the Constitution. She added that magistrates derive their authority from statute and are required to carry out their functions accordingly, meaning the extradition proceedings must continue at the magistrate level. “The sessions provide and if there was absolutely no permission in the treaty or other arrangement or prohibiting extradition to a third state that is subject to the minister’s exercise of his discretion, a person is still being extradited to a treaty or a Commonwealth territory. The appellant contends that by these measures, the legislature has attempted to amend the treaty,” the Magistrate said, quoting from the rulings in King and Mark Williams.

“The court is cognizant that his role in these proceedings, akin to a magistrate executive functions for various inquiry in the circumstances this court will continue to exercise its functions accordingly.  The matter will have to continue in magistrates’ court,” Magistrate Latchman stated.

Following the ruling, the Special Prosecutor, Terrence Williams expressed satisfaction, stating, that the ruling touched on all issues the defence raised “We’re happy to move along the case. They have had their chance to raise their objections. They raised them. The court ruled that is due process, and so we hope that in January we will be able to conduct the proceedings,” he said. He said the next step is to submit the evidence supporting the extradition request for the Magistrate to assess, and he noted that the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is expected to testify during the hearing.

Meanwhile, defence attorney Roysdale Forde criticized the ruling, arguing that the Magistrate improperly exercised her discretion. He maintained that the defence had clearly established the inconsistencies and constitutional concerns arising from the 2009 amendments. Forde said the Mohameds will now take the constitutional issues directly to the High Court, explaining that the process requires them to first seek leave through the Magistrates’ Court and then pursue a substantive constitutional application.  “We will be going there as part of this process. This is step one, because we have to do this application, and we will therefore have to be going to the High Court where we will be making substantive applications to the court itself… it is a sort of leave process where what happens before the court, under Article 153, you come to get a referral, an approval, a preliminary sort of application, where the court functions as a sort of leave. The court has refused leave, and thereafter you make a substantive application to the court itself.”

He added that the matter may ultimately proceed to the Court of Appeal and possibly the Caribbean Court of Justice, insisting that the issues raised have never been judicially addressed. He described the Magistrate’s conclusion as “very strange” and said it left him “at a loss for words.” The extradition matter was adjourned to January 6, 2026, for commencement of the proceedings.

The United States formally requested the extradition of the Mohameds on October 30, 2025, under the Guyana–U.S. extradition treaty, which remains in force under Section 4(1)(a) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, Cap. 10:04, as amended by Act No. 10 of 2024. The father-and-son duo face multiple charges unsealed on October 6, 2025, by a Southern District of Florida grand jury, including wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and customs-related offences linked to an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax-evasion scheme.

---

• Azruddin, extradition, High Court, Magistrate, Nazir Mohamed, tax evasion

---