Last Updated on Monday, 8 December 2025, 19:40 by Writer
United States (US)-indicted wealthy Guyanese gold traders Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar “Shell” Mohamed on Monday applied to the magistrates court to refer amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act to the High Court to determine whether they are constitutional.
After hearing arguments from both sides, the court would hand down its decision on December 10 at 9 a.m.
The Mohameds are wanted in the US to face trial for wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering connected to their gold trading business and Mr Azruddin’s purchase of a Lamborghini luxury car, all of which the US alleged resulted in evasion of taxes payable to Guyana.
Lawyers for the businessmen, Rajiv Persad of Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyanese lawyers Roysdale Forde and Siand Dhurjon questioned the legality and constitutionality of the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act.
“They are substantial questions of grave public importance. They have to do with the very propriety of our extradition affairs. These will be the United States government and any other treaty territory or Commonwealth territory, and that we would only ask that your worship afford Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed the ability to have or to apply for that redress,” Mr Dhurjon told the court.
Against the backdrop of Article 153(3) stating that the magistrate’s decision to refer the matter is based on whether, in her opinion, the raising of the question is merely frivolous or vexatious, Mr Forde said noting that the issues that he and his team referred are “critical, serious and grave”
Mr Dhurjon urged Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman to be satisfied “before we commence, we go any further” that no extradition shall take place unless the issue of prohibition against third state re-extradition is addressed.
Despite a written assurance by the United States (US) government disclosed to the magistrate’s court that the US would not re-extradite the Mohameds to a third State, Mr Dhurjon said that is a matter for the US-United Kingdom 1931 Extradition Treaty that Guyana inherited at the time of independence in 1966.
Other barriers, the lawyer said, is the “plucking” and removal of persons with ministerial approval, and the prosecution’s “preposterous” stance that fundamental rights would not apply to an extradition case.
Mr Persad also told Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman that the US has since amended treaties with several other countries that now provide for re-extradition of persons to third countries.
Mr Persad and Mr Forde said the 2009 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act that empowers the minister as “telling the court how to interpret a provision to read in something that is plainly not there” and amounts to the “overstepping” of the provisions of separation of powers provisions and the independence of the judiciary.
That amendment states that “Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3)(b) or any other law or treaty, a fugitive offender or any class or category of fugitive offenders may be committed to, or kept in, custody for the purpose of extradition or may be extradited to a Commonwealth country or a treaty territory in connection with any extraditable offence, if the Minster considers it necessary in the interest of justice.”
Another amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Act states that in determining under paragraph (a) whether it is in the interest of justice, the Minister may take into account any relevant factors, including but not limited to, any credible evidence that there is a likelihood of the fugitive offender being extradited to a third country from the Commonwealth country or treaty territory.
Mr Forde also said that an amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Act would “permit extraditions which are in violation of the strict and specific safeguards of the treaty and statute, and actually renders the court to be complicit and participatory to such violation.”
Relying on a number of cases, he said there must be strict adherence to Article 139 of Guyana’s constitution. He said Parliament exceeded its powers by directing the court to come to conclusions.
Mr Forde also objected to another amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Act that states, “The right to complain of infractions, if any, in the extradition arrangements lies in the asylum state and the person whose extradition is sought is not entitled so to complain to the Court in any proceedings.” He said that amendment amounts to a “guard” against challenging the other amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act.
Responding, lead prosecutor Terrence Williams of Jamaica said extradition begins and ends with the work of the political directorate backed by a treaty and supported by law. He said parliament creates laws that fosters the state’s relations rather than interference. He said extradition is and has never been an entirely judicial process and so is in a “class” by itself.
Mr Williams confirmed that the US has given “that assurance by diplomatic note” that the Mohameds would not be extradited to a third country. That diplomatic note, he suggested, is in compliance with the amended Fugitive Offenders Act. Mr Williams said the raising of “specialty” in the context of trial in a third State now was frivolous and vexatious.
Mr Williams said it is not for the Magistrate to doubt two legally binding precedents and make her decision. He added that the parliament amended the Fugitive Offenders Act in line with High Court decisions.
Mr Dhurjon said “they have tried to bring a diplomatic note to cure what the treaty doesn’t provide” which was a key plank of his arguments. The magistrate also allowed him to lay over submissions on the diplomatic note that was submitted.
Mr Dhurjon asked that the prosecution provide the authorities with an exhibit.
Magistrate Latchman also asked the prosecutors for proof that the diplomatic note came from the embassy.
She also gave the defence lawyers until Tuesday morning to make additional submissions in reply.
Fellow prosecutor, Herbert McKenzie, also from Jamaica, said the lone element of Article 153(3) that can be “countenanced” is the one dealing with fundamental rights. He said extradition is not constitutionally a breach of the fundamental right to liberty.
Article 139(1) states that “No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty save as may be authorised by law” in among several cases for the purpose of effecting the expulsion, extradition or other lawful removal of that person from Guyana or for the purpose of restricting that person while he or she is being conveyed through Guyana in the course of his or her extradition or removal as a convicted prisoner from one country to another.
Discover more from Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
