US extradition request for Mohameds: Defence Attorney alleges US, Guyana Govts working together for political motives

As the extradition proceedings involving United States (US)-indicted Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed continued in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court on Friday, Permanent Secretary (PS) in the Foreign Affairs Ministry, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, was cross-examined based on her role in dealing with the extradition request for the two accused by the US Government. During her testimony, she related that as PS of Guyana’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, she received an extradition request on October 30, 2025. She said she also received another extradition request from the US in November 2025. The lawyers for the US-indicted Mohameds attempted to question her about the latter request, but the question was disallowed after the Magistrate upheld an objection by the prosecution on the relevance of the question.
Roopchand noted that the documents were formally transmitted through official channels in accordance with established extradition procedures. However, Attorney Siand Dhurjon, representing the Mohameds, argued before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman that the extradition request – though framed around allegations of mail and wire fraud, money laundering and customs-related offences – was designed by the US and Guyanese Governments as a result of political motives.

Speaking with reporters outside of the courtroom, special prosecutor Terrence Williams stated that, “…for it to be an extradition, there needs to be concord between a request and a requesting state.” He added that every extradition is motivated by the fact that both counties have agreed to a treaty to support the criminal laws of another state by bringing fugitives from the requesting state to the requesting state. Williams related that he was satisfied with the progress of the case and hoped that the cross-examination could be over with soon. “The questioning has been extensive and at times repetitive, but we are moving forward. The evidence supporting the request has been before the court since yesterday [Thursday], and we have dates next week to continue. We are hopeful that this witness will be completed so we can proceed to the next.”
Meanwhile, in addition to their present legal team, the Mohameds have contracted Trinidad and Tobago Senior Counsel Fyard Hosein, who previously represented former FIFA Vice President (VP) Jack Warner in his extradition proceedings. The matter has been adjourned to February 9, when Roopchand is expected to resume her testimony. Two other witnesses are expected to take to the stand.
The extradition of Azruddin Mohamed and his father is being pursued under the Guyana-United Kingdom (UK) 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 US Government on October 30, 2025. The 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 US.
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.