Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman this morning ruled that the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court will move ahead with the extradition hearing for Nazir “Shell” Mohamed and his son Azruddin Mohamed, who has transitioned into politics and now leads the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party. The decision delivers a significant setback to the defense’s effort to halt the proceedings.
In her ruling, Magistrate Latchman cited several precedent-setting cases and affirmed that the matter properly falls within the jurisdiction of the Magistracy. Her decision allows the extradition process to continue without interruption.
The defense had urged the court to pause the case until the High Court determines the constitutionality of the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act. The prosecution rejected that argument as speculative and legally unsound, insisting that the court should uphold the amendments and avoid further delay.
With today’s ruling, the Mohameds, who are wanted in the United States on allegations of wire fraud, gold smuggling and money laundering now face an active extradition hearing before the Magistrates’ Court.
The defense has already signaled plans to appeal Magistrate Latchman’s decision. Attorneys describe this as the start of what is expected to become a prolonged and intense legal battle.
Today’s developments came shortly after Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall spoke on News Room about what he said were the two options available to the magistrate. He stated that the court could either uphold the defendants’ submissions and refer the constitutional questions to the High Court or declare the submissions frivolous and vexatious and proceed with the committal hearing to determine whether there is sufficient evidence for extradition.
Nandlall also argued that the ultimate authority to extradite rests with the Minister of Home Affairs, even as he maintained that the magistrate has an overriding role in directing and managing the proceeding.
The Attorney General expressed confidence in the State’s position and argued that the extradition should proceed. He invoked the doctrine of precedent, while the defendants’ legal team has contended that the current Fugitive Offenders Amendment Act is unconstitutional.
Several observers believe that prior to today’s ruling the Attorney General’s comments signaled that the matter had already been effectively resolved and that the current application should therefore be dismissed. They argue that this narrative helped set the stage for accelerating the extradition process, which they say is governed by an Act that empowers the Minister and not the Magistrate to determine satisfaction for extradition.
The extradition proceedings are scheduled to begin on January 6, 2026.
