By: Travis Chase | HGP Nightly News |
As legal arguments deepen over whether amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act violate Guyana’s Constitution, the magistrate presiding over the high-profile extradition proceedings involving embattled gold dealers Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed is now being asked to refer key constitutional questions to the High Court.
When the father-and-son duo return to court on Wednesday, December 10, 2025, Magistrate Judy Latchman is expected to rule on two pivotal matters:
- Whether Guyana should move forward with the United States’ request for their extradition, and
- Whether the High Court must first determine the constitutionality of the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act before the proceedings can continue.
Defence: Amendments violate fundamental constitutional protections
The defence has mounted a vigorous challenge to the legislation, arguing that the 2009 amendments to the Act contravene the constitutional rights of accused persons.
Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde contended that the amendments confer broad and excessive authority on the Minister of Home Affairs — authority he argued should never reside within the executive branch in matters concerning deprivation of liberty.
One of the most hotly debated provisions in the amended Act states:
“Notwithstanding subsection (3)(b) or any other law or treaty, a fugitive offender or any class or category of fugitive offenders may be committed or kept in custody for extradition, or extradited to a Commonwealth country or treaty territory, if the Minister considers it necessary in the interest of justice.”
Forde and the defence team contend that this clause effectively grants the Minister unilateral discretion, undermining judicial oversight and eroding constitutional safeguards. They have asked the magistrate to refer these constitutional issues to the High Court for interpretation before any ruling on extradition is made.
Prosecution: Objections are premature and without merit
Prosecutors, led by Special Prosecutor Terrence Williams, dismissed the defence’s objections as legally unfounded and premature. The prosecution maintains that the amendments do not violate the Constitution and that the extradition matter should proceed as usual.
They argue that the statutory framework provides adequate checks and balances and that delaying the proceedings in constitutional litigation would unnecessarily impede an active U.S. request.
Background to the U.S. request
The United States seeks the extradition of the Mohameds to face charges of wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering arising from their gold-trading operations. U.S. authorities also allege that Azruddin Mohamed’s purchase of a Lamborghini formed part of a scheme to evade taxes owed to Guyana.
The upcoming ruling is expected to determine the course of one of the country’s most closely watched legal battles, with implications extending far beyond the Mohameds’ case—potentially reshaping extradition procedures in Guyana.
