Court throws out Mohameds’ bid to stay extradition proceedings

Jan 06, 2026 News

---

(Kaieteur News) – Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on Monday denied a request made by attorneys for U.S indicted businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed for a stay of the extradition proceedings at the magistracy level until the constitutional issues raised by the defence are fully heard in the High Court.

As a result, the extradition case is scheduled to commence on Tuesday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. In December, the father and son duo had asked the court to stall the extradition case in the magistrate’s court until the constitutional matter regarding the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act is heard in full, to which Justice Singh was expected to make a ruling. During the ruling on Monday, which took place at approximately 11:00 hrs, the Mohameds were present along with their attorneys, Roysdale Forde, SC, Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva. The State was represented by Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, as well as other attorneys in the AG Chambers.

In his ruling, Justice Singh emphasised that he would not grant any relief that could delay the extradition proceedings. In his written decision, the Chief Justice stated: “While the applicants are entitled to pursue their constitutional challenge, they have not met the high threshold required for the interim relief sought. The constitutional motion/s can proceed concurrently with the extradition process without the risk of injustice. Constitutional litigation must serve as a shield for fundamental rights, not as a sword to paralyse lawful statutory processes absent compelling necessity. In the circumstances the application for a stay of the extradition committal proceedings filed on December 22nd 2025 is refused.”

Justice Singh’s ruling clears the way for the extradition proceedings to continue at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday, January 6. However, the substantive constitutional application is scheduled to be heard on January 14, 2026, which would not hinder the extradition process.

In explaining his decision, Justice Singh addressed whether the constitutional challenge raised serious and arguable issues. He noted that the essence of the applicants’ constitutional challenges in the substantive High Court action is twofold. First, the applicants argue that the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009 unconstitutionally authorises the Minister to bypass the judiciary and established court processes in extraditing individuals. Second, they contend that the Act impermissibly attempts to cure an omission in the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United States of America and Great Britain, in breach of their constitutional rights. Justice Singh explained that this omission is a statutory prerequisite under the Fugitive Offenders Act for the extradition of a person from Guyana. “Since that omission is a statutory prerequisite, in accordance with the provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act, to the extradition of a person from Guyana,” he said.

The Chief Justice further held that, in order to secure a stay of the committal proceedings, the Applicants were required to demonstrate that their constitutional challenge raised serious issues to be tried. On the defence’s reliance on Article 7 of the 1931 Extradition Treaty, Justice Singh stated that the court was not persuaded that the Treaty does not, by implication, provide assurances against further extradition by the requesting state, the United States of America.

Additionally, during the proceedings, the defence also submitted  an application challenging the state of its capabilities of pursuing an extradition proceedings, stating that that the state was biased against the Mohameds, thereby depriving them of a fair trial.

Speaking with reporters, Attorney General Anil Nandlall explained the defence’s strategy, noting that courts have consistently rejected applications aimed at staying, stopping, or delaying extradition committal hearings. “The courts have universally, universally and uniformly, have rejected any type of intervention that seeks to stay, stop or delay the committal hearing from taking place,” he said.

Nandlall SC has also explained the application made by the defence. “The court has signalled an intent so on the 14th of this month to hear the substantive matter, because this was an interlocutory application in a substantive matter. And the Mohamed’s have filed another challenge this time to the entire government being able to extradite, and they are saying that, because they are political rivals, the government is biased against them in this regard, that application also will be heard on the 14th,”Nandlall explained.

Meanwhile, defence attorney Roysdale Forde expressed disappointment with the ruling and confirmed that the defence intends to appeal Justice Singh’s decision to the Full Court. “We are disappointed. We respectfully disagree with the decision, and we will be filing before the court to seek a stay of the proceedings at the level of the Full Court,” Forde said.

Explaining the decision to approach the Full Court, Forde noted that the process is likely to be lengthy, describing the matter as one involving complex and longstanding legal issues with conflicting precedents.  “I want the public to understand that this case raises thorny issues, many years of conflicting decisions. This would be a long, arduous process. It cannot result in any sort of even if stay was granted,” he said.

When asked about the implications for the extradition proceedings scheduled for Tuesday, Forde stated that several issues would be raised before the Magistrates’ Court. “There are a number of different proceedings, challenging matters.  While the magistrate have ruled that our submission are vexatious, the magistrate is therefore would have taken a position that the legislation would be challenging this constitution. We have a problem with that. My clients will be at risk of being in prison on legislation that will ultimately be determined by a superior court on the constitution, “he said.

Forde noted that the defence will continue to fight for justice for their clients. “We will continue to press in the interest of our clients to ensure that they have a fair hearing from the length and breadth of the process,” he said.  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 last 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.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, extradition, indicted, Nazar Mohamed, Roysdale Forde

---