Mohamed lawyers seek suspension of extradition proceedings pending appeal

Lawyers representing Guyana’s Opposition Leader, Azruddin Mohamed, and his father, billionaire businessman Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, are asking the Court of Appeal to suspend extradition committal proceedings in the magistrate’s court.

The Mohameds are wanted in the United States on fraud and related charges. Their legal team argues that suspending the proceedings is necessary for a meaningful substantive appeal of an earlier High Court ruling on the Authority to Proceed (ATP).

“For the substantive appeal to be meaningful, the proceedings before the learned magistrate ought to be stayed otherwise, if successful in the substantive appeal, the proceedings before the learned magistrate may have well advanced or concluded to the detriment of the Appellants who would be committed to prison to await extradition or the outcome of habeas corpus proceedings,” the lawyers said in court documents.

Chief Justice Navindra Singh previously dismissed a case challenging Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond’s decision to issue the ATP to Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman, which the Mohameds had argued was influenced by political bias from the ruling People’s Progressive Party Civic-led administration.

Azruddin Mohamed, leader of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, which won 16 of 65 National Assembly seats in the September 1, 2025, elections, and his father have also been sanctioned by the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC). They are accused of smuggling more than 10,000 kilogrammes of gold worth over US$50 million and failing to pay the relevant taxes.

A US Federal Grand Jury last October unsealed an 11-count indictment against the Mohameds, alleging wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering, prompting a US extradition request now before local courts.

Their attorneys—Roysdale Forde, Siand Dhurjon, and Damien Da Silva—cite governmental, apparent, unconscious, and Attorney General bias, as well as errors in the High Court’s legal reasoning. They note that Magistrate Latchman’s scheduling could complete committal proceedings within a month, creating a “most conspicuous and real risk of injustice, danger and serious prejudice” if a stay is denied.

The lawyers are seeking to quash the ATP issued by Walrond, arguing that it violated their clients’ fundamental rights, and contend that the judge erred by not properly considering the relevance of apparent bias or the substance of the ATP decision over its classification.

They maintain that granting a stay would not prejudice the respondents or the US authorities.