The constitutional challenge brought by Guyanese businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed, intensified on Monday as prosecutors forcefully rejected claims that recent amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act violate the pair’s fundamental rights.
The father and son—both indicted in the United States—are facing extradition on multiple fraud and money-laundering charges linked to an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax-evasion scheme.
Lead Prosecutor Terrence Williams delivered a sharp rebuttal to the Mohameds’ legal team, which argues that amendments to the Act infringe on their right to liberty and deny them access to a fair legal process. The defence also requested that the constitutional questions be referred to the High Court.
Williams insisted the application is “premature” and legally flawed.
He told the court that the principle of speciality— which restricts how an extradited person may be prosecuted—does not constitute a constitutional right.
“Speciality is not a prohibition. It is a restriction with qualifications. Parliament establishes the restrictions and can therefore qualify them. There is no constitutional or inherent right to speciality,” Williams said.
The prosecution argued that none of the rights invoked by the defence are currently engaged in the extradition inquiry. Williams added that a diplomatic note disclosed on Friday, December 5, already provides assurances from the United States that no third-party extradition will occur, making the defence’s submissions irrelevant.
“It provides what the extradition treaty doesn’t. The U.S. was given assurance, meaning the defence submissions won’t fall. We need not look any further for provisions on the speciality principle,” he said.
Williams further submitted that Section 153(3) of the Constitution— which allows a magistrate to refer a constitutional issue—has not been triggered.
“Defence arguments cannot be raised at this stage in this court. There is no current problem requiring resolution… the matter of speciality does not arise in these proceedings,” he told Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman.
The prosecution argued that the defence is attempting to halt the extradition inquiry prematurely and dismissed their reliance on the Barry Dataram case, noting that it was decided under the pre-amended law.
“The amendment was made because of him. He cannot speak to the constitutionality of the amendment,” Williams said.
He also rejected the claim that extradition affects the constitutional right to a fair trial.
“Extradition is not a breach of fundamental rights at all. The right to a fair trial does not apply to extradition proceedings. Nothing advanced by the defence amounts to a breach.”
Prosecutor Herbert McKenzie supported Williams’ arguments, describing extradition as a “hybrid construct” involving both executive and judicial functions, grounded in treaty obligations and the rights of the State.
The defence maintains that the 2024 amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act violate the Constitution and compromise the Mohameds’ right to due process. They have asked that the constitutional matters be sent to the High Court for determination.
Defence attorneys also raised concerns about the late disclosure of the diplomatic note, arguing that it introduces new evidentiary issues that may require additional witnesses.
Magistrate Latchman granted the defence until Tuesday, December 9, to file written submissions responding to the prosecution’s oral arguments. However, she reminded both sides that she has already scheduled Wednesday, December 5, for her ruling on the constitutional submissions and will proceed on that date “whether or not the defence files its response.”
Background: Sanctions, Arrests, and US Extradition Request
The legal battle comes after growing international pressure on the Mohameds.
On June 11, 2024, the U.S. Department of State imposed sanctions on both men, accusing them of public corruption and evading more than US$50 million in duty taxes on gold exports.
On October 31, 2025, Azruddin was arrested in Guyana following an extradition request from the United States, which was formally submitted on October 30 under the Guyana–United Kingdom extradition treaty, still in force through the Fugitive Offenders Act.
U.S. charges—unsealed on October 6, 2025—include wire fraud, mail fraud, conspiracy, money laundering, aiding and abetting, and customs-related violations connected to the alleged gold-related tax evasion scheme.
The Mohameds remain on $150,000 bail each as the extradition inquiry continues.
