Mohameds raise new legal issue after magistrate refuses to refer constitutionality of Fugitive Offenders Act to High Court

Last Updated on Wednesday, 10 December 2025, 19:44 by Writer

Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman on Wednesday ruled that Guyanese gold traders Azruddin Mohamed and his father Nazar “Shell” Mohamed cannot challenge the constitutionality of a number of amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act.

Guyana’s Constitution allows the magistrate to determine in her own judgement whether the reasons for a transfer are frivolous and vexatious.

Ms Latchman said virtually all of the issues raised by the defence were already settled by previous decisions by the superior courts such as the High Court.

The Mohameds remain on bail and must report periodically to a police station until the hearing and determination of the proceedings.

She set January 6, 2026 for substantive arguments to commence in the hearing into the United States’ request for the Mohameds to be extradited to the US to answer an 11-count grand jury indictment for alleged wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering connected to their gold trading business.

Ahead of the commencement of a hearing to challenge the extradition request, Defence Lawyer Siand Dhurjon told the Court that her authority to proceed (ATP) is a “nullity on law and confers no jurisdiction on you t0 proceed.”

Admitting that the Court of Appeal had already ruled on that point in a previous case, he said the ATP “confers no jurisdiction on your worship to properly proceed to hear this case”.

Mr Dhurjon made it clear that he and his defence team believe that the Court of Appeal “authority we submit is wrong and bad in law.”

He said there’s a settled corpus of law on the point that the ATP must disclose only Guyanese offenses.

He said the ATP is likened by the case law to the indictment for the charge and that the accused or those requested must have notice under Guyanese law of the allegations to which they must meet or answer.

The Mohameds, through their lawyers, had challenged the constitutionality of several aspects of the Fugitive Offenders Act including the role of the minister and extradited persons had no further legal recourse.