HGP Nightly News – In a devastating blow to the legal defence of United States-indicted businessman Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar, Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh on Tuesday dismissed their substantive constitutional challenge, clearing the way for extradition proceedings against them to continue.
The ruling removes a major obstacle from the path of U.S. prosecutors, who have been seeking the surrender of both men to face a federal indictment in Miami. The Mohameds are accused of orchestrating a multi-year scheme to evade taxes and royalties on gold exports from Guyana, resulting in an estimated loss of some US$50 million to the state. The charges also include money laundering and wire fraud offences, along with a separate allegation involving tax evasion linked to the importation of a luxury vehicle.
In their High Court challenge, the Mohameds had contested the constitutionality of aspects of the Fugitive Offenders Act, particularly amendments made in 2009, arguing that the statutory framework underpinning the authority to proceed with their extradition was unlawful. Chief Justice Singh, after hearing arguments, dismissed the case in its entirety.
The decision follows an earlier February 4 ruling in which the acting Chief Justice rejected a separate legal challenge alleging political bias on the part of the Minister of Home Affairs and the Government of Guyana. In that decision, the court held that the minister performs an executive function under the Act and that claims of political rivalry could not invalidate the statutory authority to proceed.
State attorneys, led by Attorney-General and Minister of Legal Affairs Anil Nandlall and Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, had maintained throughout that the extradition framework is constitutionally sound and that the minister’s role is administrative rather than judicial in nature. They further argued that accepting political bias as a defence would set a dangerous precedent, allowing persons facing extradition to enter politics specifically to shield themselves from lawful proceedings.
With the substantive constitutional challenge now dismissed, the Mohameds have moved immediately to the Court of Appeal, seeking a stay of the committal proceedings before Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman. They argue that their appeal should be determined before any further steps are taken in the magistrates’ court. The application asks either for proceedings to be halted pending the appeal’s resolution or for the motion to be treated as the substantive appeal itself.
The extradition proceedings before Magistrate Latchman have already faced multiple delays, most recently due to health concerns raised on behalf of Nazar Mohamed. The prosecution has signalled interest in exploring alternative procedures, including paper committal, to advance the case if attendance issues persist.
