US extradition request: “I will not tolerate your excuses” – Magistrate warns US-indicted Azruddin Mohamed

…arrest warrant recalled, threaten bail forfeiture over tardiness

United States (US)-indicted Azruddin Mohamed faced a stern judicial warning on Monday following a dramatic morning at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts. An arrest warrant had been issued and he was taken into custody before challenging it before the Chief Magistrate. The court warned that his bail could be forfeited if he is late for any future hearings.

The warrant was issued at about 09:05h on Monday by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman after Mohamed failed to appear for the 09:00h continuation of his extradition committal proceedings. “As it relates to Azruddin Mohamed, he is very disrespectful, and an arrest warrant was issued for him. He has to be punctual; everyone else is punctual…,” Magistrate Latchman declared when the matter was called and he was not present in court. Azruddin and his father, Nazar Mohamed, both indicted in the US on several financial crime-related charges, are each on $150,000 bail pending extradition committal. Azruddin Mohamed arrived at court about 30 minutes after the warrant had been issued, prompting as his attorney’s made an application before Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty seeking to have the warrant recalled. Attorney, Roysdale Forde told the court his client has no history of being absent or late for hearings. According to Forde, Mohamed contacted him earlier, indicating he was unwell. According to the lawyer, upon attempting to leave for court, he discovered that two tyres on his vehicle had been slashed. He maintained there was no attempt to frustrate or obstruct the court process. Forde claimed that attempts were made to inform the Magistrate that Mohamed had arrived but was unable to have an audience with the Magistrate. State Prosecutor Glen Hanoman, appearing virtually, argued that Chief Magistrate McGusty did not have jurisdiction to recall the warrant. Hanoman contended that the warrant must be addressed by the same Magistrate who issued it and that whatever decision Magistrate Latchman made should stand. He maintained that the matter must return before her and that Mohamed should remain before the court until then. He further suggested that Mohamed had been disrespectful to the court and said he did not support recalling the warrant. During exchanges in court, Chief Magistrate McGusty emphasised that Magistrates are not to act based on feelings. She stated that courts operate on law and procedure, not emotion and expressed surprise at the allegation that the issuing Magistrate had refused to exercise her authority to see counsel or engage in discussion after Mohamed arrived. She noted that she did not wish to be involved in the matter, but since the application was brought before her, she was required to deal with it. At one point, she questioned whether any remand order had been signed and whether Mohamed had ever previously appeared before that court. As conflicting accounts emerged regarding whether Magistrate Latchman had declined to grant an audience with the attorneys, Chief Magistrate McGusty adjourned proceedings for 30 minutes to allow the State Prosecutor to confirm the position. Ultimately, the matter was referred back to Magistrate Latchman for determination. When proceedings resumed before Magistrate Latchman via virtual platform, Mohamed apologised for his late arrival and began offering an explanation. However, technical difficulties disrupted the hearing, preventing the Magistrate from properly hearing his submissions.

Wheels of justice must continue to turn
The Principal Magistrate indicated that the matter would continue in person. Appearing before Magistrate Latchman in person later in the day, Mohamed acknowledged his absence. “You were absent this morning,” the Magistrate told him. “Yes, I was,” Mohamed replied. He claimed that upon waking he allegedly discovered two tyres on his vehicle had been damaged and told the court he is currently dependent on a driver due to insurance issues affecting his vehicles. The Magistrate reminded him that he had previously been late and had been warned that “9 o’clock is 9 o’clock.” “The wheels of justice must continue to turn, in a timely matter and it will under my watch”. Magistrate Latchman made it clear that punctuality was not optional. “On this court’s watch, the wheels of justice will continue to turn in a timely manner,” she said. When Mohamed insisted that he had just reasons for his lateness, the Magistrate responded, “In your mind, your reasons are just. But the wheels of justice must continue to turn.” She then issued her strongest warning of the day. “At this point in time, I am very much inclined to rescind your bail and remand you,” she said, adding that she would do so to guarantee his attendance at future hearings. “I will not tolerate your excuses,” the Magistrate warned.

Repeated disruptions
Meanwhile, state prosecutor Terrence Williams expressed concern that repeated disruptions could significantly prolong the proceedings. He indicated he was troubled by the potential for the matter to stretch out for years if not tightly managed and urged that the process not be allowed to drift. He cautioned against allowing anything to affect the justice being served. Despite the stern exchanges, Magistrate Latchman ultimately decided against forfeiting Mohamed’s bail. “At this point in time, I will temper justice with mercy,” she said, before withdrawing the warrant. However, she made it clear that the leniency would not be repeated.
“Do not let this happen again,” she cautioned, indicating that on the next occasion she would rescind bail and remand him to prison. The case has been adjourned to Thursday for an update on the medical condition of Nazar Mohamed and for continuation. For now, Mohamed remains on $150,000 bail, but Monday’s events made it clear that any further delay could result in his immediate remand as the court seeks to ensure that, as Magistrate Latchman repeatedly emphasised, “the wheels of justice must continue to turn.” Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, have been indicted in the US on several financial crime-related charges, including allegations of fraud and money laundering. The father-son duo has been involved in business operations in Guyana and abroad. 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.