The People’s Progressive Party Government has retained Trinidadian attorney Douglas Mendes KC, alongside a team of Jamaican lawyers, to represent the Guyana Police Force in the ongoing extradition proceedings of businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, turn-politician Azruddin Mohamed, following a U.S. request.
Officials say Mendes and the foreign team—comprising Terrence F. Williams KC, Herbert McKenzie, and Celine Deidrick—were hired in line with Guyana’s international treaty obligations to cover legal costs in extradition matters. According to Team Mohamed’s, taxpayers’ money has already been spent on retainers and fees, with Mendes KC reportedly receiving G$50 million and the Jamaican team US$62,558.78 for a single court appearance last October, with additional monthly charges still to come.
In a social media post, Team Mohamed criticised the arrangement, calling the move “blatant hypocrisy” and questioning why local lawyers were not engaged. They further described the government’s actions as “endless hullabaloo about getting rid of their own citizens,” while highlighting private agreements signed to accept third-country deportees.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall defended the arrangement, noting it is “standard practice and a duty under the existing extradition treaty” and that the lawyers were retained on behalf of the Guyana Police Force. A U.S. Embassy spokesperson clarified that the selection of attorneys was handled solely by Guyana’s Attorney General, without input from U.S. prosecutors.
The Mohameds face 11 charges in the United States, including fraud, money laundering, and tax evasion linked to gold exports.
A judicial review of Guyana’s extradition process was held in the High Court on Wednesday before acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh. The Mohameds, represented by Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, SC, and Attorneys Siand Dhurjon, Damien DaSilva and others, challenged the issuance of the Authority to Proceed (ATP) by Minister of Home Affairs Oneidge Walrond, citing political bias and alleged constitutional violations, including amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act.
Dhrujon argued that bias affected both the Minister and the Attorney General, citing approximately 15 public statements made between June and August 2025 by political leaders, including the President and Vice President, asserting the Mohameds’ guilt before investigations were concluded. He contended the timing of the ATP, issued in October 2025, compounded this bias, making the minister “akin to a prosecutor.”
Dhrujon also noted that roughly 90% of the alleged offences occurred in Guyana, arguing this should bar extradition under the law, and claimed the Attorney General’s statements demonstrated bias and were dismissive of the Mohameds’ constitutional rights.
Douglas Mendes KC, appearing for the Minister with Clay Hackett, rejected allegations of bias, stating the ATP is “not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature” and is part of a political process under Guyana’s treaty obligations. He argued that the ATP initiates a process rather than determining guilt or final extradition outcomes, which move through the magistrate’s court, High Court, Court of Appeal, and potentially the Caribbean Court of Justice before returning to the minister.
“Our case is that the decision being challenged is not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature,” Mendes told the court. “She makes no binding decision at this stage. Her decision is far removed from the outcome.” He further argued that the applicants waived any right to object on grounds of bias by engaging with the minister during the process without raising objections at the time.
Attorney General Nandlall, supported by Solicitor General Nigel Hawke and Darshan Ramdhani KC, described the judicial review as premature, an abuse of process, and “devoid of merit.” He emphasised that extradition is an executive, government-to-government process and that satellite litigation should not derail the main proceedings. “If that is extradition law, then politics becomes a safe haven for fugitive offenders,” Nandlall said.
Representing Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, attorney Arudranauth Goosai noted that the magistrate had no authority to question the ATP’s validity and was bound to proceed once it was issued.
Dhrujon, in rebuttal, maintained that the ATP itself can be challenged as unconstitutional and rejected arguments that applicants should have awaited the outcome of the committal hearing.
Chief Justice Singh directed all cited authorities to be filed and exchanged by Monday, January 19, and indicated a ruling will be delivered on February 2.
