United States assured Guyana against third-country extradition of Mohameds –Ministry of Foreign Affairs PS tells court

The United States has given assurances to the Government of Guyana that Nazar Mohamed and his son Azruddin Mohamed will not be extradited to a third country for any other offence, the court heard on Wednesday as extradition proceedings against the businessmen intensified.The disclosure emerged during continued cross-examination of Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, who has been on the stand since January 6.“On behalf of the government, we did seek assurances for the Mohameds,” Roopchand-Edwards told the court, maintaining that Guyana formally requested confirmation from U.S. authorities that treaty provisions, including protections against re-extradition, would be upheld.Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde, representing Azruddin Mohamed, challenged that position, repeatedly putting it to the witness that in note verbale #1680/2025, “you did not seek any undertakings from the Government of the United States in respect of the Mohameds.”A note verbale is an official diplomatic communication used by governments to formally convey requests, information or positions.The exchange led to a sharp debate between the defence and prosecutor Herbert McKenzie over whether a distinction exists between “assurances” and “undertakings.”“Undertaking and assurance is the same thing,” McKenzie argued.Forde disagreed, telling the court: “An assurance in the context of extradition is a request made by the Government of Guyana for matters provided for in the treaty that the U.S. government will respond to. An undertaking is in respect of a matter not provided for in the treaty that the U.S. government is being asked to do.”McKenzie dismissed the distinction as “a difference without a difference,” but Magistrate Judy Latchman allowed the line of questioning to proceed.At one stage, Roopchand-Edwards requested to review the diplomatic note, telling the court, “It has been a while since I have dispatched the note. Can I see that note?”After examining the document, she reaffirmed her position, stating, “The government of Guyana sought assurances from the Government of the U.S. as it relates to Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed.”Reading from the correspondence, she pointed to a paragraph requesting “confirmation from the Government of the United States that this provision… will be upheld… while the Government of Guyana is assured of the strong commitment of the United States to honour its obligations under the treaty and its general obligations under international law.”She explained that the request was made “as a precaution” so that “express assurance from the Government of the United States can be produced to the court without delay.”Pressed further, the Permanent Secretary maintained that “in my mind, undertaking and assurances are the same,” agreeing that she would rely on the same paragraph to demonstrate both.The court later admitted the note verbale into evidence without objection. Roopchand-Edwards identified the relevant provision as Article 7 of the extradition treaty and Section 8(3) of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act, while acknowledging under further questioning that the paragraph referenced a single provision.She also told the court that she was not involved in discussions prior to the drafting of the note, stating, “Prior, no. After it was brought to my attention, I was told that we are seeking assurances and I read it through.”On the issue of delivery, she said the note was sent to the U.S. Embassy by email and by hand, though she only saw proof of the email transmission. “I saw the email. I did not see proof of delivery by hand,” she said.The Permanent Secretary confirmed that a response was received from the United States and that the embassy’s document serves as the assurance provided, though she said she could only recall its contents “generally.”Under further cross-examination, she acknowledged that she did not forward the extradition documents to a legal officer to verify compliance with local legislation and did not independently seek clarification from the U.S. Embassy regarding the treaty’s specialty provisions.The court will not sit on Thursday and Friday, with proceedings scheduled to resume from March 24 to March 27.The Mohameds, who were arrested in October 2025 following a U.S. extradition request, are wanted to face charges including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, money laundering and customs-related offences tied to an alleged US$50 million gold smuggling scheme. They remain on $150,000 bail each, with conditions requiring them to lodge their passports and report to the Ruimveldt Police Station every Friday, except where it conflicts with public holidays and court dates.