Mohameds’ court case heats up… PS reveals another extradition request; new lawyer joins defence, maintains political motive

Feb 07, 2026 News

---

By Shania Williams

(Kaieteur News) – The extradition case involving Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father businessman, Nazir Mohamed continued on Friday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, with several significant developments emerging during cross-examination.

The proceedings were held before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman.

During cross-examination of the prosecution’s first witness, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, revealed that Guyana received another extradition request from the United States in November last year. However, it remains unclear whether any action was taken on that request or whether it was publicly disclosed, unlike the extradition request involving the Mohameds.

Other pressing questions were raised regarding the credibility of her role in handling the U.S. extradition request documents. The defence also examined her relationship with President Irfaan Ali, suggesting that her actions as permanent secretary in processing the extradition requests were politically influenced by the president and other officials. The defence further placed on record its contention that the extradition proceedings against the Mohameds are not only politically motivated by the Government of Guyana, but that such political motivation also extends to the United States.

The Mohamed’s family is facing criminal charges in a U.S. federal court in Miami, Florida. A 25-page indictment, unsealed on October 2, 2025, alleges that they orchestrated an extensive fraud scheme involving gold exports, customs fraud, bribery, and the evasion of millions of dollars in taxes and royalties owed to Guyana.  The extradition documents were received by Guyanese authorities on October 30, and on October 31, Nazar Mohamed and Azruddin Mohamed were arrested separately by local law enforcement following a formal extradition request from the U.S. Government. They were subsequently brought before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, where each was granted bail in the sum of $150,000. The extradition request arises from an 11-count indictment filed in the U.S. Southern District Court of Florida, which includes charges of wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and customs-related offences connected to an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme.

Another major development was the expansion of the Mohameds’ legal team. Trinidad and Tobago Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein has joined the defence after being called to the local bar on Friday.

He joins Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde along with attorneys Damian DaSilva and Siand Dhurjon, who continue to represent the businessmen.

Cross examination

Proceedings on Thursday and Friday continued with the cross-examination of Roopchand-Edwards. The prosecution is being led by Jamaican attorney Herbert McKenzie, while the defence cross-examination is being conducted by Dhurjon.

During cross-examination, Dhurjon questioned Roopchand-Edwards on whether the extradition request involving the Mohameds was the first such request she received in October during her tenure as Permanent Secretary. She responded in the affirmative.

Dhurjon then asked whether she had received any additional extradition requests from the United States since that time. Roopchand-Edwards replied, “Yes, I received one on November 26, 2025.” He followed up by asking whether she was aware if those proceedings had been brought before the court.

However, prosecutor McKenzie objected to the question, challenging its relevance. In response, Dhurjon stated that the defence’s position is that the extradition proceedings are politically motivated and that the question was intended to demonstrate whether other requests had been treated with similar urgency.  “Part of the defence is that the proceedings have been politically motivated. It goes to show whether other requests had been put to speed.”

Magistrate Judy Latchman subsequently disallowed the question.

Meanwhile, Roopchand-Edwards maintained that her involvement in the extradition process was limited to notifying the Ministers of Home Affairs and Foreign Affairs of the request and handing over the relevant documents. She also denied claims that she was instructed by Minister of Foreign Affairs Hugh Todd to urgently deliver the extradition documents to Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond for expedited action.

Political influence allegations

During further cross-examination, Roopchand-Edwards was questioned about her awareness of public pronouncements made by government officials, including the president, vice president, and attorney general, as well as statements allegedly made about Azruddin Mohamed’s intention to contest the 2025 General and Regional Elections.

She stated, “Whatever I listen to or see on social media or in the press does not represent a lot or most of what relates to the Mohameds.”

While questioning the witness about her affiliations with the government, defence counsel explored whom she follows on Facebook and her awareness of public pronouncements made by government officials. Roopchand-Edwards stated that she follows President Irfaan Ali, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, Minister of Home Affairs Robeson Benn, Minister of Foreign Affairs Hugh Todd, and Minister of Finance Ashni Singh.

Dhurjon then asked whether she was aware of a live statement made by the President in July 2025 in which he allegedly described the Mohameds as a national security threat. She responded, “I cannot recall.” He further questioned whether she recalled statements by the President describing Azruddin Mohamed as a “gold smuggler” who had “defrauded the state of millions of dollars in taxes,” to which she replied that she had seen statements of that nature.

At this point, a heated exchange ensued after McKenzie objected to the line of questioning, arguing that it sought to establish political motive, which he said was inappropriate for the witness and unfair to require her to answer.

In response, Dhurjon defended his approach, stating that political motivation is a central contention of the defence. He argued that the witness had adopted the political positions of government leaders and had compromised her role in office to advance the government’s agenda. “She is being dishonest because of political motivation,” Dhurjon asserted.

He further placed on record that the defence contends the extradition proceedings against the Mohameds are not only politically motivated by the Government of Guyana, but that such political motivation also extends to the United States.

Magistrate Judy Latchman questioned whether the defence wished to have that assertion formally recorded, to which Dhurjon responded in the affirmative.

He referred to the reports that the government had paid a U.S. lobbying firm to investigate the Mohameds and link them to Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro allegations that surfaced in late 2024 through tweets by an American diplomat and supporting documents.

Despite continued objections from the prosecution regarding relevance, Magistrate Latchman allowed the line of questioning, stating that the defence had “cast the net wide” to include the requesting state and that the questions were therefore permissible.

Roopchand-Edwards’ government roles

Continuing his line of questioning, defence counsel examined Roopchand-Edwards’ involvement in government outreach activities and political rallies. She acknowledged that she participated in government outreaches leading up to the elections at which President Irfaan Ali was present.

The defence then probed the nature of her relationship with the president, asking whether she had known him from a young age, prior to his assumption of office, when he served under her father, a former Chief Planning Officer at the Ministry of Finance. Roopchand-Edwards responded in the affirmative.

She was further questioned about the positions she has held within state agencies since President Ali assumed office. Roopchand-Edwards stated that she served as a director of the Guyana Gold Board from 2021 until the end of 2025, noting that she no longer sits on the board because its statutory life has expired. She also confirmed that she is a council member of the Guyana Bureau of Standards, a member of the Guyana Real Estate Authority, and that she served for two years as a member of the Customs Tribunal at the Guyana Revenue Authority.

During her tenure at the Guyana Gold Board, Roopchand-Edwards acknowledged that she was aware the Mohameds were among the largest gold dealers in the country. She also confirmed that she was aware of U.S. sanctions imposed on the Mohameds in 2024. When questioned about whether the Gold Board renewed the Mohameds’ gold dealing and export licences following those sanctions, she stated that she became aware through media reports that the licences were not renewed.

Roopchand-Edwards further stated that she approved gold export licences during her tenure, noting that approvals could have been granted by her or another competent authority. “It could have been me or another competent authority,” she said.  She confirmed that she played a role in the issuance of gold export licences related to the Mohameds between 2020 and 2025.

Cross-examination was eventually deferred after the witness acknowledged that the President had made public statements regarding tax-related issues and gold smuggling involving the Mohameds, and that government leaders had referred to them as gold smugglers and tax evaders.

The matter was adjourned to February 9, 11, and 12, 2026.

---

• Azruddin Mohamed, extradition request, Fyard Hosein, Nazir Mohamed

---