By Mark DaCosta- In a pivotal court case that resonates deeply within Guyana’s political landscape, allegations of political bias swirl around the extradition proceedings involving Azruddin and Nazar Mohamed, who face serious federal charges in the United States. The most recent developments in this legal saga have not only spotlighted the actions of the Minister of Home Affairs and the Attorney General but have also raised questions about the integrity of our government’s judicial processes.
Central to this unfolding scandal is the Mohameds’ assertion that the decision to proceed with their extradition was influenced by their recent entrance into politics, where Azruddin Mohamed has taken on a prominent role, emerging as the presumptive figurehead of the opposition party, “We Invest in Nationhood” (WIN). The accusations originated in the midst of high-stakes court proceedings, where the acting Chief Justice, Navindra Singh, heard arguments from the defence team claiming that Minister Oneidge Waldron’s decision was politically motivated. They contend that the timing of their charges, juxtaposed with Azruddin’s political activities, points to a larger narrative of governmental bias towards political opponents.
The prosecution, however, has staunchly rebutted these claims. In a firm stance, they argue that Minister Waldron acted strictly within her legal remit, highlighting that her authorisation for the extradition proceedings was in compliance with our nation’s laws. Attorney General Anil Nandlall – who many academic analytical minds have said is on a political vendetta – echoing the prosecution’s sentiments, insisted, “Bias plays no part. Natural justice does not apply at this stage of the proceedings.”
They emphasised that the extradition request was initiated by the US authorities and affirmed that the actions taken by the Minister were entirely procedural, devoid of political interference. Numerous academic analysts have dismissed Nandlall’s defences of bias.
Much of the indictment against the Mohameds hinges on allegations of fraud, money laundering, and customs violations. The pair is accused of orchestrating a scheme that defrauded the Guyanese government of millions of dollars in taxes and royalties through illicit gold exports, in addition to bribery charges. The indictment, which consists of eleven counts and was unsealed in October, suggests a well-structured operation aimed at circumventing our country’s legal and financial frameworks. Yet, the legal team representing the Mohameds argues that the similarities between the charges and the political dynamics of their opposition suggest that the case may have deeper implications than mere legal transgressions.
As the Chief Justice prepares to deliver a ruling on February 2, 2026, the ramifications of the proceedings stretch beyond the courtroom and into the realm of politics. Azruddin Mohamed’s criticism of the government points towards an entrenched environment where political rivalry intertwines with the pursuit of justice. He has framed the extradition attempt as nothing less than a targeted effort to undermine his growing influence in the political sphere. In moments of tension during court, the defence was quick to underscore what they termed “two layers of bias,” implicating not only the Minister but also the Attorney General himself, who is perceived to be closely aligned , and carrying out the schemes of the the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).
The implications are considerable: if the Mohameds’ assertions hold any weight, it could signal a pattern of abuse of power where judicial processes are manipulated in favour of political expediency. The prosecution insists that political conditions do not influence the decision-making process at this junc
ture, dismissing the defence’s claims as unworthy of consideration. Yet the questions linger, particularly given the highly charged nature of our nation’s current political climate, where party loyalty often supersedes governance principles.
Further complicating matters, the defence plans to challenge constitutional amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act implemented in 2009, arguing that the treaty ratified between our country and the United States lacks necessary safeguards. They highlight the absence of protective measures against re-extradition to third countries without Guyanese consent, a critical concern that raises alarms about potential oversights in the legal framework that governs such high-stakes international dealings.
The political landscape of our nation has been marked by increasing tensions and divisions, allegations of bias in this extradition case could prove damaging for the PPP/C, particularly if they are seen as utilising the machinery of state to silence political dissent. As Azruddin ascends as a leading political figure within the opposition, the spotlight falls upon the government’s actions, which have the potential to be interpreted as attempts to suppress opposition voices before crucial electoral contests.
Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed remain on bail, required to report to authorities while their extradition proceedings continue. They have positioned themselves as warriors against a system they proclaim to be fundamentally flawed, asserting their innocence while calling upon the public to scrutinise the motives behind the prosecution’s actions. As the February dates draw closer, the tension surrounding this case continues to escalate, leaving citizens to wonder whether the ideals of justice and fairness will prevail, or whether political agendas will overshadow the rule of law in our nation.
The intertwining of legal and political narratives in this extrication saga serves as a sobering reminder that in our pursuit of justice, we must remain vigilant against the influence of power. As this case continues, the implications for local politics and governance will undoubtedly be debated throughout our society, challenging us to reflect on our values and commitment to integrity in our public institutions.
