Prosecution argues “no bias in Home Affair’s Minister’s authority to proceed” action in Mohameds’ extradition case

Jan 15, 2026 News

---

… defence maintains political rivalry, prosecution       

By Shania Williams

(Kaieteur News) – The prosecution on Wednesday firmly rejected claims of political bias against Minister of Home Affairs, Onidge Waldron, and Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall SC, arguing that she acted strictly in accordance with her statutory duties when she authorised extradition proceedings against businessman Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed.

The submissions were made during high court proceedings as acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh heard a judicial review application filed by attorneys for the Mohameds, who contend that the authorisation of the extradition was tainted by political bias, particularly due to Azruddin Mohamed’s recent entry into politics and alleged rivalry with the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

The defence argued that since joining the political arena in early 2025, Azruddin Mohamed has become a political opponent of the PPP/C, and that this rivalry influenced the minister’s decision to authorise the extradition proceedings.

However, the prosecution maintained that the minister complied fully with the law and that bias played no role in her decision.

Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed are facing a federal indictment in Miami, Florida, following the unsealing of a 25-page indictment on October 2, 2025. The indictment accuses them of orchestrating an extensive fraud and money-laundering scheme involving gold exports, customs fraud, bribery, and the evasion of millions of dollars in taxes and royalties owed to Guyana.

Following a request from the United States, Minister Waldron signed the Authority to Proceed (ATP), allowing the extradition matter to advance before the Magistrates’ Court. If sufficient evidence is presented, the magistrate may approve the Mohameds’ extradition to face charges overseas.

The Mohameds’ legal team, Roysdale Forde, SC, Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva, subsequently filed a constitutional motion challenging the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act, alongside a judicial review application alleging bias by the government and, specifically, the Minister of Home Affairs.

Justice Singh indicated that rulings on both matters will be delivered on February 2, 2026.

The full-day proceedings featured submissions from the prosecution led by Attorney General Nandlall, along with Trinidadian Senior Counsel, Douglas Mendes, SC. Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed, together with their attorneys, were present throughout the hearing. Also appearing for the Attorney General’s Chambers were Solicitor General Nigel Hawke and Darshan Ramdhani, KC, while Senior Counsel Arudranauth Goosai represented the third-named respondent, Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman.

In the judicial review application, attorney Siand Dhurjon argued that the process leading to the issuance of the ATP was politically tainted, involving both Minister Waldron and the attorney general.

Dhurjon contended that the minister is “akin to the prosecution,” given her role as a member of the National Assembly and her association with the governing party. He alleged that government officials had publicly portrayed the Mohameds as criminals, thereby prejudicing the extradition process.

“This party has demonstrated statements intended to portray across the length and breadth of this country that Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed are frauds, thieves, murderers, everything,” Dhurjon told the court.

He further referenced the minister’s former judicial career and her political affiliations, arguing that these compromised her impartiality. Dhurjon also claimed that the minister acted in concert with the Guyana Police Force and the Director of Public Prosecutions, asserting that she was misguided in approving the ATP.

The defence cited 15 public statements allegedly made by the president, vice president, and attorney general, asserting that the state possessed evidence against the Mohameds. One such statement, attributed to Attorney General Nandlall during his Issues in the News programme, was quoted as saying: “The person is a criminal already. If he gets a seat in parliament, then the whole country will be sanctioned.”

Dhurjon also pointed to the timing of the extradition request, between two and four months into investigations for alleged tax evasion and gold smuggling, as further evidence of political interference. He urged the court to quash the ATP, arguing that the alleged bias amounted to a breach of his clients’ constitutional rights.

Prosecution rejects claims

Appearing for the state, Trinidadian Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes  rejected the defence’s submissions, stating that the minister merely performed a statutory function and sought advice from relevant authorities, including the Attorney General’s Chambers.

“The minister is bound by law to make her decision,” Mendes said, adding that while she is required to issue the ATP when statutory conditions are met, she is not required to determine the outcome of the proceedings.

Mendes emphasised that the minister has no control over whether extradition is ultimately granted, noting that such authority rests with the court. He argued that claims of bias were inapplicable at the ATP stage and added that, if bias were alleged against the minister, it would logically have to extend to all institutions she consulted, including the police.

“Bias has nothing to do with this. If that were the case, everyone involved would be biased simply because the Mohameds are political opponents,” Mendes stated.

He also dismissed claims that the Guyanese government had any role in initiating the U.S. extradition request, stressing that it was clearly initiated by U.S. authorities.

Attorney General Nandlall echoed these arguments, asserting that the Ministry of Home Affairs processes extradition requests as a matter of routine and that the minister acted in full compliance with established legal procedures.

“Bias plays no part. Natural justice does not apply at this stage of the proceedings,” Nandlall said.

He described the applications as meritless and an abuse of the court’s process, arguing that they were designed to derail the committal proceedings.

He further argued that the defence is attempting to use political rivalry as a shield for fugitive offenders, contending that the Mohameds’ position was that they could not be extradited simply because the government was allegedly biased against them as political opponents. “If that is extradition law, then politics becomes a safe haven for fugitive offenders. I have never heard such a preposterous contention, yet that is the basis of this case,” Nandlall stated.

Nandlall further noted that the extradition request predated the Mohameds’ decision to contest the general elections, stressing that those circumstances had no bearing on the minister’s authority to issue an ATP. He added that there was no allegation that the minister breached any statutory requirement, stating, “The law is the law. These things don’t make sense,what does bias have to do with anything?”

Additionally, Senior Counsel Arudranauth Goosai, appearing on behalf of Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, clarified that the magistrate has no authority over the issuance of the ATP and is legally bound to proceed once it is received.

Constitutional Challenge

During the proceedings, Attorney Forde advanced similar submissions before the Chief Justice, focusing in particular on Section 8(3)(b) of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009. The defence argued that Guyana’s extradition arrangement with the United States is deficient, as the treaty does not expressly guarantee that a person extradited to the U.S. cannot be re-extradited to a third country without the prior consent of the Government of Guyana. He further contended that Section 8(3)(b) expressly prohibits extradition to the United States unless safeguards are in place to prevent such re-extradition without Guyana’s approval.

However, Nandlall urged the court to dismiss the constitutional challenge, noting that the issues raised had already been judicially settled.

After a full day of arguments, Justice Singh reserved his ruling, which is expected on February 2, 2026.

---

• Anil Nandlall, Azruddin Mohamed, extradition case, Nazar Mohamed, Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon

---