The high-profile extradition proceedings involving businessman Nazar “Shell” Mohamed and his son-turned-politician, WIN Party leader Azruddin Mohamed, are set to enter a decisive phase now that the prosecution has completed all outstanding disclosures. With the defence having received the full set of documents, Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman has scheduled oral submissions on the constitutional objections for December 8, with a ruling expected on December 10.
The Mohameds, owners of Mohamed’s Enterprise, remain on $150,000 bail each, must report every Friday to CID Headquarters, and have surrendered their passports. The United States is seeking their extradition after a Florida grand jury indicted them on 11 counts ranging from alleged gold smuggling and money laundering to wire and mail fraud. They were previously sanctioned by the U.S. Government for corruption and under-invoicing of gold exports—allegations they strongly deny.
The defence team comprises Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon, among others. Both Dhurjon and Forde have publicly questioned the legal foundation of the extradition request, arguing that several of the U.S. charges fail to meet the “dual criminality” requirement under Guyanese law.
Dhurjon has maintained that many of the offences listed “are not extraditable offences under our law or under the treaty.” Forde, addressing the nature of the fraud-related allegations, explained that the charges themselves present a fundamental legal mismatch:
“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.”
On the prosecution side, the State and U.S. Government are represented by Jamaican attorneys Terrence Williams KC, Herbert McKenzie, and Celine Deidrick, along with Guyanese lawyer Glen Hanoman. The government’s decision to import a Jamaican legal team has triggered public criticism after it was revealed that the trio were paid more than US$60,000 for a single court appearance in October 2025. The expenditure has raised concerns about the financial burden on taxpayers, particularly when qualified local attorneys could have been engaged. The government has also remained silent on the retainer being paid to Hanoman, prompting additional calls for transparency.
With disclosure now complete and the constitutional arguments set to be heard, the upcoming December 8 session is expected to be critical. The court’s determination may either advance the U.S. extradition effort or halt it entirely, marking a pivotal moment in one of Guyana’s most politically sensitive legal battles.
