Magistrate Judy Latchman has refused an application by the defence to trigger Article 153 of the Constitution and send several constitutional questions arising in the high-profile extradition proceedings of We Invest in Nationhood leader Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed to the High Court.
The ruling clears the way for the extradition hearing to proceed before the magistrate’s court on January 6, 2026, when the United States is expected to present evidence supporting its request for the men to be sent to stand trial on 11 Grand Jury counts.
The defence argued that significant constitutional and statutory issues stem from the 2009 Amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Act, Chapter 10:04. According to their submissions, Sections 3A(A) and (B) improperly empower the Minister of Home Affairs to order the detention and extradition of a person, violating Section 8(3)(b) of the original Act, which prohibits extradition unless treaty protections prevent onward extradition without ministerial consent.
Counsel further contended that the amendment forces the court to overlook the absence of such safeguards, amounting to an unlawful intrusion on judicial power and an attack on the doctrines of the rule of law and separation of powers. They argued that the Mohameds’ fundamental rights — including personal liberty, life, protection of the law, private and family life, freedom of movement, access to the courts, and the right to a fair hearing — are at risk.
The requesting state submitted Diplomatic Note No. 458, providing assurances that the Mohameds would not be prosecuted for offences outside those approved for extradition and would not be surrendered to a third country without Guyana’s consent.
However, Magistrate Latchman noted that diplomatic notes do not carry the binding force of a treaty and are not “set in stone,” adding that treaties must be observed in good faith under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The court sided with the requesting state’s position that constitutional protections are not triggered at this stage of extradition proceedings, calling the defence’s application frivolous, vexatious, and premature.
Relying on several established authorities — including Garfield Sobers v. Director of Prisons (1999), Stephen King v. Director of Prisons, and Marvin Williams a.k.a. Troy Thomas — Magistrate Latchman said the arguments raised by the defence have already been settled by superior courts.
On the question of onward extradition to a third state, she highlighted that the 2009 amendment permits the Minister to authorize detention and extradition even without speciality protections, provided it is deemed in the interest of justice. She cited Justice Barlow’s ruling in the Troy Thomas matter, which upheld the legality of the amendments.
The magistrate rejected reliance on the Barry Dataram ruling, noting it predates the 2009 amendments and is therefore irrelevant.
Application denied
Magistrate Latchman ultimately found no basis to invoke Article 153.
“This court is bound by the principle of stare decisis and will not depart from the binding precedents of our superior courts,” she ruled.
She also reminded the parties that, under Section 50 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, her role mirrors that of a magistrate conducting a preliminary inquiry, and she will continue to operate within that framework.
The Mohameds were arrested on October 31, 2025, one day after warrants were issued on a notice filed on behalf of the Minister of Home Affairs. The United States is seeking their extradition to stand trial on multiple offences outlined in the Grand Jury indictment.
