Chief Justice (ag) Rejects Stay Bid in Mohamed Extradition Case

Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh on Monday rejected an application to stay the extradition proceedings involving businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, turn-politician, Azruddin Mohamed, clearing the way for the matter to move forward in the magistrates’ court. No order as to costs was made.

The ruling allows the extradition hearing to commence on Tuesday before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman. Justice Singh is scheduled to hear the substantive constitutional challenges raised by the defence on January 14, 2026.

The Mohameds had applied for a stay pending the determination of constitutional issues challenging Guyana’s extradition framework, with particular focus on the 2009 Fugitive Offenders Amendment Act. Those arguments were previously dismissed at the committal stage by Magistrate Latchman, who ruled that the amendments were constitutional and that the matters raised were already settled by binding judicial precedent.

Appearing for the State, Attorney General and Senior Counsel Anil Nandlall argued that extradition law in Guyana is governed by treaty obligations and statute and is intended to function as a swift, structured process between states. He submitted that the defence was seeking to relitigate issues already ventilated and dismissed and described the stay application as an abuse of process designed to delay the proceedings.

Nandlall relied on both local and regional jurisprudence, including Justice Jo-Ann Barlow’s decision in Marvin Williams (also known as Troy Thomas) v Commissioner of Police et al and the Court of Appeal ruling in King v Director of Prisons et al. He contended that the statutory framework provides remedies only after the committal stage. He further emphasized that once a committal order is made, extraditees retain the right to challenge the decision by way of habeas corpus and appeal, during which an automatic stay applies.

Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, representing the Mohameds, argued that constitutional challenges need not await the conclusion of committal proceedings. He contended that the 2009 amendments vest excessive authority in the Minister of Home Affairs, undermine judicial independence, and improperly restrict the ability of persons facing extradition to challenge illegality, thereby infringing fundamental rights.

In addition to seeking a stay, the Mohameds are challenging the Authority to Proceed issued by Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond. They argue that the Authority is legally null and void and tainted by both presumed and apparent bias. The defence is asking the court to quash the Authority and bar any further involvement by Ministers Walrond and Nandlall in the extradition process.

Principal Magistrate Latchman has already set January 6 and 7, 2026, for the commencement of evidence in the extradition proceedings. In dismissing an earlier referral request by the defence, she stated that the court would not “resurrect what has been put to rest,” noting that the issues raised were governed by the doctrine of stare decisis.

The Mohameds remain on $150,000 bail each, have surrendered their passports, and must every Friday to the Ruimveldt Police Station after being arrested on October 31 on a U.S. extradition request. They face 11 charges in a U.S. federal court linked to an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme and were sanctioned by the U.S. in June 2024 for alleged gold smuggling and public corruption.