HGP Nightly News – Four months after the United States formally requested the extradition of U.S.-indicted businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed, the matter remains stuck in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court, a delay Attorney General Anil Nandlall attributes to deliberate legal tactics designed to slow the process.
Speaking to reporters following a High Court ruling on Monday, Nandlall expressed growing frustration with the pace of proceedings, contrasting the Mohamed case with the swift extradition of another Guyanese national, Ronley Floyd Bynoe, who was recently committed to custody without challenge.
“The Bynoe matter demonstrated how extradition proceedings are ordinarily conducted,” Nandlall said, noting that the same procedural steps were followed, documents transmitted through diplomatic channels, processed by the relevant ministries, and brought before the court.
Bynoe indicated he would not challenge the request and was remanded pending surrender to the United States, where he faces charges in Ohio for misuse of a Social Security number, bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft.
The Mohamed case has followed a very different path.
The U.S. extradition request was transmitted at the end of October 2025 following indictments issued in the Southern District of Florida. Since then, the Mohameds have mounted multiple legal challenges in the High Court, including a judicial review that was dismissed and is now under appeal, and a constitutional challenge to amendments in the Fugitive Offenders Act.
On Monday, Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh delivered a mixed but largely favourable ruling for the State on the constitutional challenge. Three of the four challenged provisions, Sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b), and 8(3)(B)(c), were declared constitutional. Only Section 8(3)(B)(b) was found inconsistent with the Constitution. Nandlall said the ruling effectively clears the way for the magistrate proceedings to continue.
Yet they have not.
The Attorney General pointed to what he described as deliberate strategies employed by the defence to slow the process. These have included extensive cross-examination and lines of questioning that, in his view, fall far outside the narrow scope of extradition hearings.
Under the Fugitive Offenders Act, Nandlall explained, the magistrate’s role is limited to examining the documents submitted by the requesting state, the indictment, charges, and supporting evidence, and determining whether the legal requirements for committal are met. Extradition proceedings are not trials, he insisted, and should not expand into broader inquiries beyond the statutory framework.
“Both the constitutional challenge and the earlier judicial review were filed after the magistrate proceedings had already begun,” Nandlall noted. Despite those High Court matters now being determined, the committal hearing continues to face delays.
