Chief Justice to rule on Mohameds’ request to stay extradition proceedings on Monday

Dec 31, 2025 News

---

…Nandlall says challenge baseless, abuse of process

(Kaieteur News) – Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh on Tuesday heard arguments in the request brought by Nazir ‘Shell’ Mohamed and his son Azruddin Mohamed to stay extradition proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court.

The father and son duo has asked the court to stall the extradition case in the magistrates’ court until the constitutional matter is heard in full. The Mohameds have been indicted in a U.S. federal court in Miami, Florida on several charges. The 25-page indictment, unsealed on October 2, 2025, accuses the Mohameds of orchestrating an elaborate fraud and money-laundering scheme involving gold exports, customs fraud, bribery, and the evasion of millions in taxes and royalties owed to Guyana.

Earlier this month, Magistrate Judy Latchman delivered a decisive ruling that 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. Magistrate Latchman emphasised that the core issues raised by the defence regarding the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act had already been considered by higher courts and did not require further review.  As such, the extradition proceedings are set to commence on January 6, 2026.

In light of the magistrate’s ruling, an application to halt extradition proceedings and to hear the challenges to Fugitive Offenders’ Act were put to the high court by lead attorney Roysdale Forde who argued that the magistrate improperly exercised her discretion, and the amendments to the legislation are unconstitutional and infringe on his clients’ fundamental rights. He maintained that the defence had clearly established the inconsistencies and constitutional concerns arising from the 2009 amendments.

On Tuesday morning, the Mohameds’ along with their defence team including, Forde, Damien Da Silva, and Siand Dhurjan, presented their case before Justice Singh and asked the court to halt the extradition proceedings at the magistrate level pending a determination on the constitutionality of the amendments to the Act.

Forde, speaking to the media, explained the basis of the defence’s submission. He said the defence highlighted the prejudice the Mohameds would likely suffer if the application is not granted.

“In summary, the prejudice will be that was these proceedings are pending in High Court challenging the constitutionality of the very legislation under which the magistrate will have to act, and she already indicated a previous decision to accept the validity of those pieces of legislation. They will likely to be imprisoned if the magistrate found that there is sufficient evidence against the Mohameds. Once they are committed, they will lose the right to bail [and] they will be imprisoned. They will now have to make an application to the court, the very high court by a way of habeas corpus,” Forde explained.

Following defence’s argument Tuesday morning, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall SC in an interview with the media stated that no serious issues were raised by the defence.

“Mister Forde in his presentation has accepted that his application is an unusual one, and it’s not normally granted. It’s not normally made in these circumstances. In fact, he began by saying that he couldn’t find a parallel or precedent in the Caribbean. So, we got to go through the arguments,” he said.

Nandlall posited that taking the matter to the high court is a means of further delaying the extradition proceedings. “But I don’t think that they will succeed. Expedition law is quite settled. There’s a straightforward area of law now. There are complicated extradition cases; this is certainly not one of them. The issues here, as I’ve said before, are settled,” the attorney general said.

During the afternoon session, which lasted for almost three hours for the attorneys’ response, Nandlall outlined that the Fugitive Offenders Act already entails the procedural steps.  He told reporters outside the courtroom that, “I’ve articulated what the legal position is in Guyana, we have a treaty that treaty governs expedition. We have a fugitive Offenders Act that sets out in detail the procedure to be followed when an extradition request is made.”

Additionally, the attorney general pointed out that the extradition process in Guyana should not be lengthy and delayed by constitutional issues raised by the defence that were already addressed in the magistrates’ court.

“Extradition process, by its very nature, is not intended to be embroiled in legal processes, and that’s why the extradition law of Guyana, as does the extradition law of almost every country, sets out a process by which extradition proceedings are heard and determined and the way challenges can be made in relation to that process. The Act itself says that the magistrate must be allowed to commit, do the committal hearing, and if the magistrate discharges the accused persons or the subject persons, the state has a right to challenge that rule, and then the state has a right to appeal. Similarly, if the magistrate rules that the person should be committed, then those persons have a right to challenge by way of habeas corpus, and then an appeal against that and throughout that process, and it is automatically granted against the extradition taking place by the law itself,” the attorney general explained.

“Clearly, the policy of the law and the intent of the process is not to entertain these side shows and these collateral challenges, these collateral challenges are not contemplated by the law. That’s why, when the magistrate rejected those provisions, those arguments in the magistrate’s court, there is no right of appeal against that… the Constitution would have so provided once those once the magistrate rejects those arguments, the next step is for the magistrate to be allowed to proceed, not to come back to the High Court, to file proceedings,” he added.

Nandlall in his argument also highlighted that the law also provides an opportunity for the defence to raise any challenges or issues during the proceedings. “The law provides an opportunity for you to do so. The law does not contemplate these types of collateral challenges that seek to delay the magistrate court proceedings,” he said.

He further claimed that the application to stall the extradition proceedings is an abuse of the process and articulated that the arguments raised by the defence are “frivolous and vexatious”.

“In any event, for you to get a stay of proceedings, you have to show that you have meritorious issues. You have to show that you have serious issues for a court to determine,” Nandlall stated.

Meanwhile, attorney Forde maintained that his team’s arguments are relevant and that the attorney’s presentation is “worthless”.  He pointed out to the court that that there is a significant body of law to support their claim that challenges can be made before the end of a committal process.

“We’re able to cite cases from court abuse cases from Trinidad and Belize that dealt with very similar situations. We were able to highlight to the core the complexity of the legislation, why we say it’s unconstitutional, and the prejudice that our clients will suffer,” Forde told reporters.

He maintained the clients’ rights in the matter, and to not deny them a fair judicial process.

After hearing both sides of the argument, Justice Singh adjourned the matter to January 5, 2025 for ruling.

---

• Anil Nandlall, Azruddin, Damien Da Silva, extradition, Nazir Mohamed

---