Magistrate to rule next month on whether Azruddin Mohamed’s case should go to High Court

Last Updated on Friday, 28 November 2025, 18:55 by Denis Chabrol

Leader of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), Azruddin Mohamed, and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, would on December 10 know whether a magistrate would refer the United States (US) request for their extradition for trial for alleged financial crimes to the High Court on constitutional grounds.

Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman is expected to also rule on a number of constitutional points that the Mohameds’ lawyers are expected to make oral and written submissions on as well.

Article 153(3) states that, “If in any proceedings in any court subordinate to the High Court any question arises as to the contravention of any of the provisions of articles 138 to 151 (inclusive), the person presiding in that court shall refer the question to the High Court unless, in his or her opinion, the raising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious.” Legal sources indicate that the magistrate would have to determine whether the questions have merit concerning a possible breach of any of the Articles 138 to 151 of the constitution which deal with several things including protection from deprivation of property, protection against arbitrary search or entry, secure protection of law, and equality of persons before the law.

She would also rule on submissions concerning the evidence that has been disclosed by the prosecution to convince the court that there is sufficient reason for them to be extradited to the US to face trial in a federal court in Florida.

The US in October unsealed an 11-count indictment, accusing the Mohameds of wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering connected to their gold trading business.

Outside the courtroom on Friday, Defence Lawyer Roysdale Forde told reporters that he and other members of his legal team were preparing to mount a constitutional challenge to an amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Act in 2009. “We are challenging the provisions of an amendment in 2009 which really and truly alters the landscape in relation to extraditions,” he said.

The lawyer reminded that that amendment was as a result of a Full Court of the High Court ruling in the matter of Barry Dataram, striking down “large parts” of the extradition act. “The consequence of that: Parliament enacted legislation which we believe is unconstitutional, trying to remedy the breaches or what the law was found to be an unsatisfactory state by the court,” he said.

Senior Counsel Forde said the Mohameds’ legal team received formal statements and evidence from the prosecution to back its position that those alleged offences occurred. He could not say whether any of the statements were from senior government officials because most of the documents are redacted.

Appearing before the Principal Magistrate, another of the Mohameds’ lawyers, Siand Dhurjon noted that the prosecution took one month to complete their disclosure and so he and his team were requesting two weeks to review and make their submissions. He felt that he and his team were “almost at the point of being ambushed” by the prosecution that now “glibly” stated that their disclosure was completed.

But lead prosecutor, Terrence Williams objected to any “blame game” being ascribed to him because the evidence had been provided. Mr Williams believed that the defence team did not seem ready to make submissions for a constitutional referral.

The Principal Magistrate, in her case management, said the defence team would have to email its submissions to the court and the prosecution by December 5. The sides would return to court on December 8 for oral submissions and then, according to the magistrate, she would give her ruling on the constitutional points.

Depending on the magistrate’s ruling, the lawyers would be ready to proceed with the hearing.

The Jamaican legal team was ready to proceed with the hearing on Friday, even walking with a box of case law on extradition proceedings. “We walked with a box of the cases that we will be relying on should submissions be made but the submissions have now been adjourned to another date,” Mr Williams said.