-Chief justice rules that fugitives failed to meet threshold for interim relief
Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed, faced another legal blow as the High Court in Demerara rejected their application to stay extradition proceedings, which they had sought while challenging what they claimed were serious constitutional issues.
The father and son continue to fight extradition to the United States, where they face serious federal charges, including money laundering.
The ruling, delivered on Monday by Acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, follows a challenge by the Mohameds to the constitutionality of certain provisions in the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2009, which they argued allowed executive overreach in extradition matters.
The case originated from a formal request by the United States Government under the 1931 Extradition Treaty between the United States and Great Britain, seeking their extradition to face federal indictments returned by a grand jury.
The Guyana Police Force arrested the men on October 31, 2025.
Justice Singh noted that “it is apparent that the Minister of Home Affairs [Oneidge Walrond] issued the requisite Authority to Proceed.”
An Authority to Proceed is a ministerial approval confirming that a foreign request meets legal requirements and signals the transition of the matter from the executive or political level to the judicial process for committal proceedings.
Following their arrest, the Mohameds were brought before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman under section 15 of the Fugitive Offenders Act and released on $150,000 bail each pending committal.
The father and son initially requested that Magistrate Latchman refer their constitutional concerns to the High Court under Article 153(3) of the Constitution. However, she found the questions “frivolous and vexatious.”
They subsequently applied to the High Court on December 22, 2025, to stay the committal proceedings pending the court’s determination of the same issues, with their application heard on December 30, 2025.
In his ruling, Justice Singh emphasized the supremacy of the Constitution but clarified that this does not automatically suspend statutory proceedings.
He said, “It is firmly established that the mere institution of constitutional proceedings does not operate as an automatic stay of parallel criminal or extradition proceedings… the grant of a stay in extradition matters is exceptional, not routine.”
The court rejected arguments that the Amendment Act allowed the Minister to bypass judicial processes.
Justice Singh explained, “On a basic reading of section 3(A)(a), the section seems to simply provide that a person may be committed to or kept in custody for the purpose of extradition if the Minister considers it necessary in the interest of justice. Section 3(A)(b) simply provides certain factors that the Minister may take into account in determining whether the extradition proceedings should be permitted in the interest of justice.”
He noted that the Minister’s authority only extends to assessing assurances provided by the requesting state and confirmed there was no allegation that judicial processes were bypassed.
Justice Singh also addressed claims regarding treaty safeguards and redress under section 3(B)(c), finding them “not a serious issue to be determined” and describing the challenges as “abstract and speculative.”
On potential prejudice, he stated, “The Applicants will have further opportunities to invoke further judicial review and habeas corpus protections prior to surrender, therefore there is no risk of surrender or removal before the constitutional issues are resolved.”
The Acting Chief Justice concluded that the Mohameds “have not met the high threshold required for the interim relief sought” and that constitutional litigation “must serve as a shield for fundamental rights, not as a sword to paralyse lawful statutory processes absent compelling necessity.”
The court ordered that costs be in the cause. The substantive application on the constitutional issues is scheduled for hearing before the Chief Justice on January 14, 2026.
The ruling now allows Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman to commence committal proceedings, determining whether the father and son can be formally extradited.
The committal hearing is expected to begin tomorrow and continue on Wednesday.
The Mohameds’ legal team has indicated they plan to appeal Acting Chief Justice Singh’s ruling to the Full Court as early as today, and, if necessary, escalate the matter to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, together with attorneys Siand Dhurjon and Damien DaSilva, represented the Mohameds.
Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, Solicitor General Nigel Hawke, Deputy Solicitor General Shoshanna Lall, and attorney Dishon Persaud appeared for the respondent, the Attorney General.
The Mohameds initially raised their constitutional concerns before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, requesting that she refer the issues to the High Court for determination. However, the magistrate refused, describing the questions as “frivolous and vexatious.”
She declared, “This court is not about to resurrect what has been put to rest. Having judiciously examined all the issues leveled by the defence and the request for a referral to be triggered, this court sees no basis to activate the referral article [Article 153(3)], since it is guided by the principles of stare decisis. This court, therefore, denies the application to engage the referral article of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana.”
Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed, proprietors of Mohamed’s Enterprise, remain out on $150,000 bail each, have surrendered their passports, and are required to report to the Ruimveldt Police Station every week.
U.S. authorities allege that the father and son orchestrated a sprawling international criminal operation with connections to Venezuela and the Middle East.
In a Florida federal court, they are facing 11 criminal charges, including wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, and customs violations, all connected to a US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme.
In June 2024, the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control imposed sanctions on the pair, and their case was investigated by multiple federal agencies, including the DEA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security.
