Last Updated on Sunday, 2 November 2025, 11:47 by Writer
Guyana’s constitution clearly prohibits the granting of bail to someone who has been arrested for the purpose of extradition, prominent attorney-at-law Sanjeev Datadin said on Saturday.
“Our constitution preserves the right to liberty in Art 139, but as seen…our constitution at Art 139(i) specifically permits the loss of liberty in extradition proceedings. It’s fundamental to the judicial system that there is consistency,” said Mr Datadin who is set to take up his parliamentary seat for the governing People’s Progressive Party from Monday following the September 1 general and regional elections.
He frowned on Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman’s decision as “most unusual” to have granted GY$150,000 bail each to Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, after they were arrested on the basis of a warrant stemming from an extradition request by the United States (U.S.).
Mr Datadin said the fundamental principle of bail is to ensure the defendant returns to Court for the hearing of the criminal charge against him or her. He reasoned that there is no criminal charge in this Court but an extradition hearing for the charges to be heard in a U.S. court. “It’s difficult to see how a Magistrate as a creature of statute is able to grant bail when it is not hearing the charge,” he said.
He said the claim by lawyers for the Mohameds that they intended to file a constitutional challenge does nothing to change this position. “They are entitled to file the constitutional challenge but that does not entitle the Magistrate to grant bail,” he said. He said there was no previously reported case in which a magistrate hearing extradition proceedings had granted bail.
Article 139 (1) (i) of Guyana’s constitution states that “No person shall be deprived of his or her personal liberty save as may be authorised by law…for the purpose of preventing the unlawful entry of that person into Guyana, or 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.
The Mohameds return to court on November 10, 2025.
Referring to wire fraud and mail fraud, two of the charges that the U.S. grand jury has indicted the Mohameds with, defence lawyer Siand Dhurjon questioned the counterpart offence in Guyana. But Attorney General Anil Nandlall said on a government-organised interview that Mr Dhurjon’s query was legally unsound and already settled by an appeal court in other cases.
Mr Nandlall said the next step is for the State to disclose to the defence lawyers the paperwork that was received from the U.S. so that they could prepare for the hearing. “This Magistrate needs to be satisfied that, based on the evidence provided, that there is sufficient material and sufficient evidence to commit these people to stand trial in the United States,” he said.
The Mohameds were sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control in June 2024 for allegedly evading U$50 million in taxes payable to the Guyana government for more than 10,000 kilograms of gold exports. Earlier this month, a U.S. grand jury indictment against the Mohameds was unsealed paving the way for the extradition request.
The Attorney General dismissed claims in certain quarters that the moves against the Mohameds were politically motivated. He noted that the government brought in Jamaican lawyers to provide “diligent and competent service” and that the matter is not perceived to be politically influenced or driven.
