Multiple factors delay extradition hearing
March 19 2026
Fresh disruptions once again slowed proceedings in the ongoing extradition matter involving businessmen Nazar Mohamed and his son, Azruddin Mohamed, when the case was called on Wednesday at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Courts.
A combination of illness affecting members of the defence, uncertainty surrounding a Muslim observance, and overlapping court obligations contributed to the delays.
Despite the interruptions, Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman permitted the hearing to advance in part, allowing for the continuation of cross-examination of the Permanent Secretary within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Sharon Roopchand-Edwards, whose testimony has extended beyond two months.
During the proceedings, the court was informed that attorney Siand Dhurjon, who represents Nazar Mohamed, was not present due to illness. Senior Counsel Roysdale Forde indicated that he had only recently become aware of his colleague’s absence via a message.
Additionally, lawyers appearing for Azruddin Mohamed were also missing, reportedly due to illness, although no official notice had been provided to the prosecution.
With one of his attorneys absent, Nazar Mohamed expressed uncertainty about how to proceed.
However, Magistrate Latchman pointed out that his involvement at this juncture remained limited, as Forde continued to handle the cross-examination. She further noted that Dhurjon would be required when the court moves to deliver rulings.
Compounding the situation was confusion over scheduling arrangements. The court had earlier agreed not to sit on Friday due to Forde’s commitments before the Court of Appeal.
It was later clarified that those engagements were actually set for Thursday. Simultaneously, the defence had indicated that Thursday would be observed as a Muslim holiday, which was challenged in court before being corrected to Friday.
The court will not sit on Thursday and Friday after the Mohameds, who describe themselves as devout Muslims, requested to be excused from attending proceedings on Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of Ramadan.
Amid the procedural setbacks, questioning of Roopchand-Edwards pressed on, with significant attention placed on diplomatic exchanges between Guyana and the United States following the October 2025 extradition request.
In the afternoon session, a key diplomatic communication, Note 458, issued by the United States, was introduced into evidence.
Under questioning from Forde, Roopchand-Edwards confirmed that the document contained assurances from U.S. authorities that the Mohameds would not be extradited onward to any third country without Guyana’s consent.
“Yes,” she told the court when asked to verify the contents of the document.
This formed part of a wider examination into Note Verbale 1680 of 2025, through which Guyana formally sought assurances in keeping with Article Seven of the extradition treaty, invoking the principle of speciality.
Roopchand-Edwards maintained that the response from the United States sufficiently addressed those concerns. “458 is the assurance for 1680 of 2025,” she stated.
However, defence counsel continued to challenge the terminology used, suggesting there is a difference between “assurances” and “undertakings.” The Permanent Secretary rejected that distinction, stating, “In my mind, undertaking and assurances are the same.”
Further questioning revealed that Roopchand-Edwards had not carried out any independent analysis regarding how the United States applies the relevant treaty provisions, nor was she aware of any such review being conducted within the ministry.
“I didn’t do any assessments,” she admitted.
She also acknowledged that after receiving the extradition request in October 2025, she did not submit the documents for legal review but instead forwarded them directly to the Minister of Home Affairs.
The request for assurances, she explained, was dispatched to the U.S. Embassy both electronically and by hand, following guidance from the ministry’s legal department.
Earlier in the proceedings, issues were raised regarding inconsistencies in the ministry’s records, including an admitted error in an October 29, 2025, entry and uncertainty about when staff were officially notified of the receipt of the extradition documents.
The extradition request originates from criminal proceedings in the United States, where both men are wanted on charges including wire fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering tied to their gold trading activities.
U.S. federal investigations alleging that the father and son orchestrated an extended scheme involving gold exports, tax evasion, and money laundering.
Authorities claim the pair falsified shipment records and reused official seals as part of their operations, thereby avoiding substantial tax and royalty payments.
The alleged scheme is said to have caused losses to Guyana estimated at approximately US$50 million.
In 2024, they were sanctioned by the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) over allegations involving large-scale corruption, including gold smuggling and tax evasion.
Outside the courtroom, prosecutor Glen Hanoman criticised the repeated delays and accused the defence of deliberately prolonging the matter.
“The content of two diplomatic notes. One of the diplomatic notes was a request from the Government of Guyana to the United States Government for assurances as a precaution against re-extradition… and of course there was a diplomatic note from the United States embassy… they were given an assurance for the Mohammeds that they were not going to be extradited to a third country or for any other offence,” Hanoman told reporters.
He emphasised that the diplomatic correspondence was intended to safeguard the accused. “These diplomatic notes were clearly an attempt by the government of Guyana to protect the Mohammeds from re-extradition.”
Hanoman further argued that objections to the documents were difficult to justify. “So, it’s hard to imagine that this is a document that the defense can have any complaints about, or the Mohammeds.”
Addressing the pace of the case, he accused the defence of engaging in calculated delay tactics.
“I think it’s clear for everyone to see that this is their strategy. Every single maneuver that they make is to effect this purpose,” he said.
He noted that several applications to halt the proceedings had already been rejected by the High Court, the Court of Appeal, and the magistrate.
“They continue to try and obtain delays in this case,” Hanoman asserted.
Commenting on the day’s developments, he described the circumstances as unusual, particularly the absence of attorneys and Senior Counsel Forde’s position regarding holding the matter.
“So, it’s highly unusual for a Senior Counsel… to now say that he’s not in a position to hold the matter,” he said.
Hanoman also suggested that further disruptions could arise. “All sorts of shenanigans are going to go on to try to achieve delays, and I expect that various persons will fall ill on the defense side, whether lawyer or fugitive offender.”
He criticised the line of questioning pursued during cross-examination, arguing that it strayed beyond the scope of the Magistrates’ Courts under the Fugitive Offenders (Amendment) Act.
“He continues to ask what in our view are a series of irrelevant questions that have no bearing on any issue before the court,” Hanoman said.
He warned that the proceedings risked becoming disorderly if not properly managed. “At some point… we’re now bartering on the verge of this thing becoming a circus.”
Hanoman has since called for what he described as a “reset” of the case, underscoring that the court’s function is limited to determining whether the offences are extraditable, whether sufficient evidence exists, and whether the request carries any political motivation.
The matter was adjourned, with cross-examination of Roopchand-Edwards scheduled to resume from Tuesday, March 24 and continue through to Friday, March 27.
The Mohameds were each granted $150,000 bail pending the extradition proceedings, with conditions requiring them to lodge their passports and report to the Ruimveldt Police Station every Friday.
