Dear Editor,
The recent extradition proceedings initiated by the State against Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed—the latter having emerged as a pivotal figure in the Opposition—have transcended the boundaries of a standard courtroom battle. What we are witnessing is a high-stakes constitutional stress test that threatens to expose a government prioritized by “haste and hubris.” As Attorney General Anil Nandlall navigates these turbulent waters, his strategy raises a haunting question: At what point does the pursuit of a political opponent become a surrender of national dignity?
The outsourcing of justice has opened a troubling pattern that is bartering our sovereignty in the thirsty quest for power. The most glaring contradiction in the government’s approach is the decision to facilitate an external prosecution rather than asserting domestic jurisdiction. For a nation entering its “oil-rich era,” the message being sent is one of institutional frailty.
If the allegations of gold smuggling and tax evasion are as severe as claimed, why has the State not prioritized a domestic trial to recoup these billions? By opting for extradition over local prosecution, the government signals a voluntary surrender of sovereignty. This move suggests that the Guyanese state is either incapable or unwilling to police its own borders and audit its own revenues, preferring to export its problems rather than solve them.
This clear lack of confidence brings with it extra—ordinarily high costs. The fiscal optics of this case are as damaging as the legal ones. While the government drains the public treasury to hire a fleet of high-priced foreign “silk,” the contrast in strategy is stark and revealing:
- In accessing legal expertise : The State relies on expensive foreign counsels, such as Terrence Williams KC , along with the recent inclusion of Douglas Mendes and Dharshan Ramadhni, bringing with them years of experience and an extremely hefty bill. While the defendants have placed their absolute trust in the competence of the local Guyanese Bar. Absolute proof that they are more pro—Guyana ,than the people occupying the seat of power.
- Institutional Faith: The hiring of foreign attorneys at extraordinary costs serves as a silent indictment of the AG’s confidence in the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and local legal professionals. The AG’s show of no—confidence in his own agency’s capabilities, should prompt him to effect the change and not leave ordinary citizens at its mercy .
- Economic Impact: Taxpayers are funding a massive drain on the treasury with no guarantee of financial recovery for the nation, while the defense reinvests in local professional sectors.
- Performance: Despite the “superior” salaries of the foreign team, the status quo reveals a State in disarray and unpreparedness, while the local defense team displays a “coherence and grit” that challenges the supposed superiority of the foreign elite.
With this glaring exposure, we are now prompted to issue the following “hard questions” for the Attorney General:
The AG’s penchant for expressive press briefings must now face the rigor of public accountability. The nation’s conscience demands answers to the underlying “sinister motive” of these proceedings:
- Value for Money: With legal fees for foreign counsel reportedly reaching staggering monthly sums, how does the State justify this to the Guyanese taxpayer? If the goal is justice for financial crimes, why are we spending millions more to ensure the accused are never tried on the very soil where the crimes were allegedly committed?
- Institutional Erosion: Is this surrender an admission that our judicial system is “beneath the task”? How can Guyana claim democratic maturity when the Executive branch appears to be bending the arms of judicial independence to secure a political end?
- Political Protection or Justice? Given Azruddin Mohamed’s political status, how does the government dispel the perception that this is a politically motivated removal? Is the taxpayer being forced to pay for the political protection of the ruling party’s grasp on power?
In its folly of hate and hubris, with a “no holds bar” mindset the government is embarking on an unrelenting effort to remove a political opponent via extradition, at great public expense, may yield a pyrrhic victory at best. This moment is not merely about two individuals; it is about whether Guyana is committed to the separation of powers. If the State continues to prioritize expediency over constitutionality, the ultimate loser will not be the Mohameds, but the rule of law itself.
Who truly gains? If the Mohameds are extradited, Guyana loses its chance to recoup lost revenues, the local Bar is insulted by the preference for foreign “experts,” and a precedent is set that political challenges are met with deportation rather than the ballot box. This is no longer a pursuit of justice; it is a pursuit of power at the taxpayer’s expense. Leaving one final question for the AG—when are we going to get our “world—class”legal system Sir?
Sincerely
Hemdutt Kumar
