By Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News |
GEORGETOWN, GUYANA — Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall, SC, has intensified his criticism of the ongoing legal maneuvers in the extradition proceedings against Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed. Speaking on Tuesday, February 24, 2026, Nandlall alleged that the case is being bogged down by “deliberate delays” intended to stall the judicial process.
The comments follow a series of high-stakes court appearances and a significant High Court ruling that cleared a major legal hurdle for the state.
Four Months of Deadlock
The substantive extradition committal proceedings, presided over by Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, have been active for four months. Nandlall pointed to a pattern of repeated adjournments and what he termed “questionable explanations” for absences as the primary drivers of the slowdown.
- Pattern of Absence: The AG noted that the defense has frequently requested delays, citing reasons ranging from illness to official duties related to National Assembly budget debates.
- The Slashed Tire Incident: Tensions peaked earlier this month when Magistrate Latchman issued—and subsequently recalled—an arrest warrant for Azruddin Mohamed after he arrived 25 minutes late to court, initially blaming a migraine before citing slashed tires.
High Court Ruling: A Setback for the Defense
While the Magistrate’s Court matter continues to drag, the High Court recently delivered a 26-page judgment that addressed the Mohameds’ constitutional challenges to the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act 2024.
- Constitutionality Upheld: Chief Justice Navindra Singh rejected the majority of the defense’s arguments, ruling that the legislative framework governing the extradition process is consistent with the Constitution of Guyana.
- Way Forward: Nandlall contends that with these constitutional questions settled, there is no longer a legal basis for the continued stalling of the committal hearing.
The Comparison: Ronley Floyd Bynoe
In his remarks, the Attorney General drew a sharp contrast between the Mohamed case and the recent extradition of Ronley Floyd Bynoe.
- Bynoe Case: Bynoe, also wanted in the U.S., chose to waive his right to challenge the extradition. This allowed for a swift process, resulting in his remand pending removal to American custody.
- The Argument: Nandlall used this example to demonstrate how extradition matters are typically handled when not met with what he describes as “vexatious” legal challenges.
Crucial Hearing: February 26, 2026
The legal battle is now heading toward a critical junction tomorrow, Thursday, February 26. Both the prosecution and defense are expected to present submissions on a pivotal procedural question:
- Paper Committal: Whether the matter should proceed under the new 2024 legislation, which allows for a faster, document-based process.
- Preliminary Inquiry: Whether the case should continue via a traditional inquiry, which permits the extensive cross-examination of witnesses—a route favored by the defense but seen by the state as a further delaying tactic.
The Mohameds remain under indictment in the United States for several international financial crimes, including money laundering, wire fraud, and customs-related offenses.
