By Mark DaCosta-The extradition case involving prominent business and opposition figures, Azruddin and Nazar “Shell” Mohamed is approaching a crucial date, with a ruling expected on December 10 from Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman. This decision will determine whether the United States’ request for their extradition to face serious financial crime charges will proceed to the High Court on constitutional grounds.
The US indictment against the Mohameds, unsealed in October 2025, includes eleven serious counts, alleging their involvement in a scheme that defrauded the government of our nation of over US$50 million through various fraudulent activities associated with their gold trading business. Following the formal extradition request received by the Guyana government, the Mohameds were arrested on October 31 and later released on $150,000 bail each, had to lodge their passports, and report to the Police every Friday.
As the high-profile case unfolds, the defence is poised to challenge an amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Act made in 2009, which they argue disrupts the legal landscape concerning extradition procedures. The legal team, led by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, asserts that this amendment stems from a prior High Court ruling that declared portions of the extradition process unconstitutional. This challenge aims to highlight perceived injustices and protect constitutional rights purportedly violated by the amended law.
In the lead-up to the December ruling, Principal Magistrate Latchman must consider several constitutional points raised by the defence counsel. These include potential breaches of articles in the constitution that safeguard citizens against unwarranted governmental action, such as protection against arbitrary searches and the right to due process. The Mohameds’ legal representatives, having received evidence from the prosecution, indicate that they are preparing to argue for the constitutional referral, although they have expressed urgency in having more time to review the prosecution’s documents. Defence lawyer Siand Dhurjon conveyed concerns about potentially being caught off guard, describing the situation as “almost at the point of being ambushed” by the prosecution’s rapid disclosures. According to experts, it is extremely unusual for any defence team to be given only a few days to formulate a defence after the prosecution’s disclosure.
The prosecution, represented by Jamaican King’s Counsel Terrence Williams, dismissed claims of procedural unfairness and remains confident that sufficient evidence exists to justify extradition. According to the U.S. indictment, the Mohameds are accused of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering, with a specific timeline suggesting these crimes occurred over several years, culminating in June 2024. Allegations centre around the manipulation of customs declarations related to the export of gold from our nation, framing a troubling picture of corruption at the highest levels of business and politics.
The Government of Guyana has reiterated its commitment to treating this case strictly as a legal matter, however, the political aspect stands out like the metaphorical white elephant. People’s Progressive Party (PPP) officials, including the Attorney General Anil Nandlall S.C., and President Irfaan Ali, insist that the etradition process follows established legal protocols. The administration’s insistence that the approach is merely procedural contradicts the narrative of many who fear that the case is being influenced by the ruling PPP. This concern is compounded by the fact that Azruddin Mohamed’s party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), recently emerged as a significant opposition force, winning 16 seats during the September 2025 election.
As the court date approaches, the political implications of this case are undeniable. Many observers fear that the extradition proceedings could serve as a tool for political retaliation against the Mohameds’ ascent as vocal critics of the government. President Ali’s remarks regarding the case suggest an unsettling disconnect from the realities facing the defence, as he minimised the significance of the allegations and the potential for a lengthy legal battle. “The court’s role is solely to determine if there is enough evidence to warrant extradition, not to try the case for guilt or innocence,” he stated, raising eyebrows among those who believe the administration’s motives are less than transparent.
As the arguments are set to unfold, the atmosphere remains tense, with passionate advocates on both sides. The decision by Magistrate Latchman on December 10 could significantly pivot the trajectory of not only the Mohameds but also the political landscape in our nation.
