High Court throws out US-indicted Mohamed’s claims of political bias to block extradition

…awards $1.5M in cost as case fails

The High Court on Wednesday dismissed claims by United States indicted Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed that the extradition process against him was tainted by political bias.

The ruling was delivered by Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh in one of two ongoing cases filed by Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, challenging aspects of the extradition proceedings.
In the dismissed case, the Mohameds had sought to quash the authority to proceed issued by the Home Affairs Minister, as well as all subsequent actions arising from it, including arrest warrants and the ongoing extradition proceedings before Senior Magistrate Judy Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.
The applicants argued that the minister, the Government of Guyana, the president, the Vice President, and the Attorney General and Legal Affairs Minister, Anil Nandlall, were biased against Mohamed because of his political activity, including his participation in the most recent general elections. They claimed this alleged bias rendered the extradition process invalid.
The respondents named in the proceedings included the Home Affairs Minister, Oneidge Waldron, the Attorney General, and Senior Magistrate Latchman. Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes represented the magistrate, while the attorney general appeared in person. the magistrate herself took no part in the proceedings.
In the High Court ruling, the Chief Justice dismissed the allegations of bias, stating that a case for bias has not been made out and cannot be made out. “The Minister is not performing a judicial or quasi-judicial function when issuing the authority to proceed, but is instead discharging an executive function under the Fugitive Offenders Act. Allegations of bias, if any, can only be directed at judicial tribunals, not the executive.”
Speaking to reporters after the ruling, Attorney General Nandlall said the case highlighted the independence of the judiciary and the proper role of the executive in extradition matters:
“The question of bias does not arise. The executive has constitutional and treaty obligations to discharge, and entering politics after these matters began cannot be used to challenge lawful processes. If this were allowed, anyone facing extradition could claim political bias to evade the law, and that is simply not the law of Guyana or any other country.”
He further explained that the court had relied on legal precedents from across the Caribbean, the Commonwealth, and England, noting that, “These matters have been litigated in courts across the world, and the authorities clearly support the position that executive action in extradition is not subject to bias claims.”
Each respondent, the Attorney General, the Minister of Home Affairs, and Senior Magistrate Latchman, was awarded $500,000 in costs. The ruling also rendered unnecessary a pending application by the Mohammeds to stay the Magistrates’ Courts proceedings, which were expected to continue this week.
The extradition of Azruddin Mohammed and his father is being pursued under the Guyana–United Kingdom Extradition Treaty, which remains in effect in Guyana under Section 4(1)(a) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, Cap. 10:04, as updated by Act No. 10 of 2024. The formal request for their extradition was submitted by the United States Government on October 30, 2025.
Mohameds, along with their business interests, were sanctioned by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) on June 11, 2024. The sanctions were imposed for allegations of large-scale corruption, including gold smuggling, money laundering, and bribery, with investigations indicating attempts to evade more than US$50 million in taxes owed to the Guyanese Government.
In addition, a grand jury in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida has indicted the father-son duo on 11 criminal counts, including wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering, primarily linked to the export of gold by their company, Mohamed’s Enterprises, to the United States.
If convicted, most of the charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 20 years and fines up to US$250,000. The money laundering charge carries a potential fine of US$500,000 or an amount equivalent to the value of the laundered assets.
The Mohameds have a second High Court action challenging the constitutionality of certain provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act, particularly amendments made in 2009. That matter has already been argued, with written submissions filed by all parties, and a ruling is scheduled for February 16.
Meanwhile, extradition proceedings before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court are expected to continue on Thursday and Friday.