US extradition request: US-indicted Mohameds try another tactic to block Magistrate from advancing committal

The United States (US) indicted Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, who have filed an application in the Court of Appeal of Guyana seeking a stay of extradition proceedings, pending the determination of their substantive appeal. The Notice of Motion filed names Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond, Attorney General (AG) Anil Nandlall and Senior Magistrate Judy Latchman as respondents.

The applicants are seeking a stay of the extradition proceedings currently before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts, in which the US is requesting their surrender. They are also asking that the appeal be heard urgently and that the hearing of the stay application be treated as the appeal if the court considers it appropriate. The appeal follows a February 4 ruling by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh dismissing a Fixed Date Application in which the Mohameds had sought to quash the Authority to Proceed (ATP) issued by the Home Affairs Minister on October 30, 2025, under the Fugitive Offenders Act, Cap. 10:04.
In that application, the Mohameds argued that the ATP and subsequent arrest warrants were tainted by political bias and therefore unlawful. They contended that the Minister, the Government, President Irfaan Ali, Vice President (VP) Bharrat Jagdeo and the AG were biased against Azruddin Mohamed because of his political activity, including his participation in the September 1, 2025, General Elections. However, in dismissing the application, the acting Chief Justice ruled that a case of bias had not been made out and could not be made out.
He held that the minister was discharging an executive function under the Fugitive Offenders Act when issuing the ATP and was not performing a judicial or quasi-judicial role. As such, allegations of bias could only be directed at judicial tribunals and not the executive. Each of the three respondents, the AG, the Minister of Home Affairs and Senior Magistrate Latchman, was awarded $500,000 in costs. Trinidad and Tobago Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes represented the Magistrate, while the AG appeared in person.
The Magistrate herself took no active part in the proceedings. Following the ruling, AG Nandlall told reporters that the decision reaffirmed the independence of the judiciary and the proper constitutional role of the executive in extradition matters. He stated that entering politics after the commencement of extradition proceedings could not be used to challenge lawful processes and that the law does not permit claims of bias to be levelled against executive decisions of this nature. He further noted that courts across the Caribbean, the Commonwealth and England have consistently held that executive action in extradition matters is not subject to bias claims. The February ruling also rendered unnecessary a pending application by the Mohameds to stay the Magistrates’ Courts proceedings.
Earlier, on January 6, 2026, the acting Chief Justice had refused a separate application for a stay of the extradition proceedings, clearing the way for the substantive hearing before Magistrate Latchman to proceed. Attorneys for the Mohameds indicated at that time that they would appeal to the Full Court and continue pursuing a stay. Lead counsel Roysdale Forde had stated that the legal battle would be extensive and could ultimately reach the Caribbean Court of Justice. AG Nandlall had described several of the defence’s High Court challenges as premature and argued that the extradition framework provides mechanisms for appeals and stays after a committal order is made. He maintained that interlocutory applications seeking to halt the committal hearing had been consistently rejected by courts.
The Mohameds are seeking to block their extradition to the US, where they have been indicted by a federal grand jury in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida on 11 charges, including conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. The allegations relate primarily to gold exports through their company, Mohamed’s Enterprises. The extradition request was formally submitted by the US Government on October 30, 2025, under the Guyana–United Kingdom (UK) Extradition Treaty, which remains in force in Guyana pursuant to Section 4(1)(a) of the Fugitive Offenders Act, as amended by Act No. 10 of 2024.
In their current application before the Court of Appeal, the Mohameds argue that the Minister and AG were affected by presumed and apparent bias and that the ATP is therefore void. They contend that if the appeal succeeds and the ATP is quashed, the extradition proceedings must fail. Accordingly, they maintain that there is a serious issue to be tried and that a stay is necessary pending the outcome of the appeal. A date for the hearing has not been fixed.
The extradition of Azruddin Mohamed and his father is being pursued under the Guyana–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.