The extradition request from the United States against embattled businessman Nazar “Shell” Mohamed and his son-turned-politician Azruddin Mohamed has sparked a high-profile legal debate in Guyana. Government officials assert the case is straightforward, while Mohamed’s legal team, which includes Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, emphasises constitutional safeguards and the limits of domestic law.
President Irfaan Ali confirmed on Monday that there is sufficient evidence to process the U.S. request and dismissed claims that Mohamed is being politically targeted. “This started long before we came into office. This investigation started long before we came into office, and we followed all the steps… now the final step, here we are where the United States government… a court in United States had indictment now against the Mohamed’s indictment, 11 indictments,” Ali said in a Facebook interview.
The President explained that the indictment, which involves gold smuggling, money laundering, and other criminal activity, followed international legal procedures and was carefully reviewed by the Guyanese government. “This is a clear investigation that started long before 2020… cross jurisdiction, international in nature,” Ali added.
The indictment, unsealed on October 6, 2025, alleges that the fraudulent scheme operated “from in or about 2017” through June 2024.
Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo noted that the indictment originated from a U.S. grand jury and involves serious offenses including money laundering, wire fraud, and mail fraud, each carrying up to 20 years’ imprisonment. He stressed that Mohamed will receive full due process and that parliamentary immunity does not prevent extradition.
Following their arrest to activate extradition, Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, were granted bail of $150,000 each on October 31, 2025. They are required to lodge their passports with the court and report weekly to police. The next court date is set for November 10, 2025.
Adding another twist, the Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) case against the Mohameds was dismissed yesterday by Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty, leaving legal observers to speculate on the reasoning. Social activist Mark Benschop suggested that the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, under which Guyana was then a colony, may have influenced the decision, particularly as outlined in Articles 4 and 5.
The Guyana Revenue Authority (GRA) later clarified the withdrawal of the case had to do with the extradition case against the Mohamed
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, speaking to Village Voice News, highlighted a crucial legal point regarding extraterritorial offenses.
“On the Order fraud, there are inherently extra-territorial offences, which means from the point of view of the United States, they are capable of being committed corresponding outside of the country. Correspondingly, there is no such provision in Guyana, because all the Laws of Guyana in relation to criminality, except where specifically stated, are only capable of being committed in Guyana. So, you can’t have a corresponding offense in Guyana in relation to an offence being committed in the United States,” Forde explained.
Forde emphasised that the case extends beyond Mohamed personally, reflecting his commitment to constitutional principles and equality under the law. “I fervently believe in the common law principles, the Constitution and Laws of Guyana. This case is not only about the Mohameds but about every Guyanese, upholding the tenet of the common law principles, and guaranteeing equality under the law. This, I took an oath to protect and discharge without fear, favour or ill will,” he said.
Legal experts observe that Forde’s argument underscores the importance of safeguarding citizens’ rights while balancing international extradition obligations. By highlighting the lack of a domestic legal counterpart for some alleged offenses, Forde is ensuring that extradition proceedings adhere fully to Guyana’s Constitution and legal framework. His approach is seen as a principled defense of the rule of law, demonstrating the crucial role of constitutional oversight in high-stakes international cases.
The case illustrates the delicate interplay between international legal cooperation and domestic constitutional protections, with Forde’s intervention reinforcing the need for careful, law-abiding processes in matters that could set precedents for all Guyanese.
