Indicted father, son lose another bid to halt US extradition proceedings at Magistrates’ Courts

…CoA Judges refuse urgent stay; full appeal decision for March 17

United States indicted Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, were unsuccessful on Tuesday after they made an effort to have the Court of Appeal temporarily stop the extradition proceedings being pursued against them.
The father and son pair had applied for an urgent stay of the process currently before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts while the Appellate Court considers their appeal of the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond. After listening to arguments from lawyers representing both sides, the court declined to grant the order, clearing the way for the extradition hearing to move forward.
While refusing the request for an immediate halt to the proceedings, the Judges indicated that a ruling on the appeal itself will be handed down on March 17.
The legal battle arises from a February 4 judgement by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who dismissed a case filed by the Mohameds challenging the legality of the Authority to Proceed issued by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, explained that the arguments raised in the Court of Appeal on Tuesday were largely centred on allegations of bias against the Minister of Home Affairs, who issued the Authority to Proceed in the extradition matter. However, he maintained that the claim of bias by the US-indicted Mohameds was “manufactured and contrived”.
Nandlall argued that the Minister was performing an administrative function required under the law when issuing the Authority to Proceed, which merely triggers the start of the extradition process before the courts. He emphasised that the actual determination of the case occurs within the judicial system through proceedings in the Magistrates’ Court, with further avenues of challenge in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
He further contended that accepting the argument of political bias could create a dangerous precedent where individuals facing extradition simply enter politics and then claim they are being targeted.
According to the attorney general, the extradition process involves treaty obligations between Governments, and the Minister’s role is an executive function mandated by legislation. He explained that delegating that responsibility to another Government official would not remove the allegations of bias raised by the applicants.
Through their attorneys, the applicants had argued in the High Court that the Minister’s decision to authorise the extradition process was influenced by political considerations. They maintained that Azruddin Mohamed’s involvement in politics and his participation in the September 2025 general and regional elections created a situation where bias could be inferred.
Their lawyers had therefore asked the court to invalidate the Authority to Proceed issued under the Fugitive Offenders Act and to bring an end to the arrest warrant and the extradition case being heard by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman.
However, the acting chief justice found no merit in those arguments. In his ruling, he determined that the Minister was exercising an executive responsibility set out in law and was not acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity.
During those proceedings, the State’s legal team, which included Attorney-General Anil Nandlall, SC, and Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, contended that the Minister’s statutory duty to issue the authority could not give rise to allegations of bias.
The attorney general also pointed out that the sanctions imposed by the United States and the extradition request involving Azruddin Mohamed were initiated before he became politically active.
According to Nandlall, accepting claims of political bias in such cases could open the door for individuals facing extradition to attempt to avoid the process simply by entering politics and asserting they are being targeted.
The High Court ultimately dismissed the application and ordered the Mohameds to pay $500,000 in costs to each of the respondents, the Attorney-General, the Minister of Home Affairs, and Principal Magistrate Latchman.
The applicants had also attempted to challenge sections of the Fugitive Offenders Act on constitutional grounds, including amendments introduced in 2009, but that aspect of their case was likewise rejected.

Extradition hearing
In the meantime, the extradition hearing is expected to continue before Principal Magistrate Latchman at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts on March 12.
The extradition request follows a United States federal indictment filed in Miami in October last year against Nazar Mohamed, 72, and Azruddin Mohamed, 38.
American prosecutors allege that the father and son were involved in a long-running operation involving the export of gold in a manner designed to avoid paying taxes and royalties owed to the Government of Guyana.
Investigators alleged the activities were carried out through Mohamed’s Enterprise, a gold exporting business in Guyana, which allegedly misrepresented the quantity and value of gold sent to international buyers, including in Miami and Dubai.
US officials allege that from 2017 to 2024, official Government seals taken from a single legitimate gold shipment were reused to validate a number of additional shipments. United States authorities estimate that the alleged scheme resulted in approximately US$50 million in lost revenue for the Guyanese state.
Nazar Mohamed is charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and mail fraud. Azruddin Mohamed faces charges of conspiracy to commit money laundering and wire fraud and is also accused of avoiding more than US$1 million in taxes linked to the importation of a Lamborghini from Miami to Guyana.