Mohameds ask High Court to suspend extradition hearing, find amendments to Fugitive Offenders Act unconstitutional

Last Updated on Wednesday, 24 December 2025, 23:35 by Writer

City businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, have asked the High Court to rule that several amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act are unconstitutional, and that magistrate court hearings into the United States’ request for their extradition be suspended until the constitutional issues are addressed.

Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman had scheduled January 6 and 8, 2026 at 9 a.m. for the committal proceedings to begin. But the High Court on Wednesday fixed January 6 to hear the Mohameds’ application on the several constitutional issues centered largely on amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act.

The Mohameds—who have been indicted by a US grand jury for alleged wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering and related alleged evasion of taxes payable to the Guyana government for gold exports and the purchase of a Lamborghini luxury car—hope that the High Court would order that provisions of the amended Fugitive Offenders Act are unconstitutional, unlawful and void.

In particular, the High Court is being asked to order that Sections 8 (3) A (a), 8 (3) A (b), 8 (3) B (a), 8 (3) B (b) and 8 (3) B (c) individually and collectively breach the principles of the separation of powers doctrine and the rule of law.

Further, through their lawyer Roysdale Forde, they say those provisions of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act No. 30 of 2009 infringe the constitutional principles that regulate the independence of the judiciary pursuant to Article 122A of the Constitution of Guyana, the Mohameds’ rights to liberty as guaranteed by Article 139 of the Constitution of Guyana, due process of law as guaranteed by Article 139 of Guyana’s Constitution and that the courts are not to rely upon those amending provisions when dealing with the applicants extradition.

If the High Court makes any or all of those declarations, the Mohameds are further asking the High Court to issue a further declaration that issuance of the authority to proceed and subsequent arrest and detention of the Mohameds in circumstances where the treaty governing the extradition arrangements between the US and Guyana does not contain any provision in relation to the requirements of Section 8 (3) of the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act Cap. 10:08, which is a bar to extradition, amounts in this case to a breach of the applicants’ fundamental right not to be deprived of their liberty except where authorised in law.

Those issues were ventilated in a request for the magistrate to refer them to the High Court, but Ms Latchman declined to do so and found that they were frivolous and vexatious.