Businessman-turned-politician Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed have been indicted in the United States (US) The 17-page indictment, unsealed this week in the Southern District of Florida, outlines an alleged seven-year scheme (2017–2024) involving over 10,000 kilogrammes of undeclared gold, bribery of customs officials, and a complex web of freight fraud and international wire transfers designed to funnel illicit wealth from Guyana to Miami, Dubai, and California. U.S. prosecutors estimate the scheme deprived Guyana of over US$50 million in unpaid taxes and royalties.
The legal development has renewed public interest in Guyana’s extradition procedures and sovereignty. In a widely circulated social media post, attorney-at-law Eusi Anderson offered a sharply worded intervention, urging calm and constitutional discipline.
“Indictment is the precursor for extradition request. The Mohameds are Guyanese. One Guyana.”
Anderson drew a regional parallel to the long-standing extradition case of former Trinidad and Tobago government minister and FIFA vice-president Jack Warner.
“Jack Warner, against whom a mountain of evidence was available to sink him and Sepp Blatter from FIFA, was requested for extradition and the sovereign Courts of Trinidad and Tobago just about 8 days ago refused the extradition request. That refusal on the face of it seems permanent.
81-year-old Warner despite any ‘evidence’ will not be extradited to face any foreign crimes.”
In a pointed analysis of Guyana’s legal landscape, Anderson continued:
“I wonder out loud whether the Extradition Amendments are themselves constitutional and therefore not subject to challenges which in turn will stymie, delay and or otherwise Warner any extradition proceeding until another election… be it in Guyana or elsewhere.”
The Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2024, passed earlier this year, significantly altered Guyana’s extradition framework. The amendment expanded the admissibility of evidence in extradition proceedings and clarified the roles of key Ministers involved in the process.
Under the amended law:
-
The Minister of Foreign Affairs plays a critical role in verifying whether there are valid extradition arrangements or treaties with the requesting state.
-
Once confirmed, the Minister of Home Affairs is responsible for issuing the authority to proceed with the extradition process.
-
The Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs is tasked with overseeing the implementation and legal framework of the Act, including presenting and defending the amendments in Parliament.
Additionally, the new law ensures that new types of evidence—such as records of the case, legal descriptions of the offence, and certifications from the requesting country—are now explicitly admissible, thereby strengthening Guyana’s ability to cooperate in transnational crime and extradition cases.
But Anderson’s post goes further, raising questions not only of legal procedure, but of political status and constitutional protection, especially in the case of Azruddin Mohamed, whom he refers to as “Junior Mr Mohamed.”
“Also what privileges constitutional, diplomatic or otherwise redound to Junior Mr Mohamed in his capacity as the Leader of the Opposition of a sovereign foreign power? Our laws are remarkably silent on the limbo period between an election and swearing in but what is solid is that nothing can change Junior Mr Mohamed’s position as The Official Leader of the Opposition of Guyana other than a fresh election yielding a different result or his resignation from the list which he heads.”
Anderson underscores the political and constitutional dimensions of the moment:
“So with Senior Mohamed able to proverbially Warner the drama and Junior Mohamed the only leader of the Opposition unless he cedes otherwise and the potential constitutional challenges to the extradition amendments; we ought to let cool heads prevail.”
Calling attention to the broader principle of justice and sovereignty, Anderson makes a final appeal:
“One Guyana also includes the Mohameds and the presumption of innocence until guilt is established, irrespective of who wields the stick. Today Uncle Sam holds the stick, tomorrow it might be Uncle Dragon.”
He adds a firm disclaimer:
“Please this post is not in support of the Mohameds, rather it is a clarion call for level, cool heads and informed debate on the certainty that today is their day but tomorrow can be yours on evidence that may not pass muster. Process over feelings. Logic over emotions and fear.”
The indictment may have opened a new legal chapter, but Anderson’s message underscores a deeper concern. This moment is not only about the Mohameds—it challenges the strength of Guyana’s legal institutions, the constitutionality of its evolving extradition laws, and the nation’s ability to uphold due process in the face of foreign pressure. How Guyana responds will say as much about its commitment to justice as it does about the individuals at the centre of the case.
