GEORGETOWN, Guyana – Principal Magistrate, Judy Latchman, Tuesday ruled that the extradition committal proceedings against the leader of the We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party, Azruddin Mohamed and his billionaire businessman father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed, should go ahead after the prosecution provided the local corresponding charges.
Azruddin Mohamed (right) and his billionaire businessman father, Nazar “Shell” Mohamed (File Photo)The ruling comes even as the lawyers for the Mohameds filed a stay pending the hearing and determination of an appeal to the Full Court of the Chief Justice Navindra Singh’s ruling on Monday.
The lawyers for the Mohameds had wanted a stay pending the hearing and determination of two High Court constitutional challenges to provisions of the Fugitive Offenders Act and Home Affairs Minister Oneidge Walrond’s Authority To Proceed (ATP) on the grounds that the Mohameds are being politically targeted.
“I’ll allow the evidence to remain on the record,” the Principal Magistrate Latchman said, referring to the note and bundle of documents that were received by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sharon Roopchand-Edwards from the US government and transmitted to the Home Affairs Minister, Oneidge Walrond.
The magistrate said the objection “goes to weight and not admissibility”.
But soon after the Principal Magistrate gave her ruling that there would be no stay and ordered the first witness to take the stand, defence lawyer Roysdale Forde stood and told the court that the proceedings should not go ahead until a schedule of the corresponding local offences are provided.
“The requesting State (US) is under a duty to furnish the defendants with a schedule of the corresponding local offences upon which the committal enquiry is to proceed,” he said, adding if that was not done, as a matter of law and constitution, the Mohameds could be exposed to double criminality, inadmissibility and irrelevant evidence and the possibility that there is prima facie case exists.
Forde said the court was “under a duty” to furnish the defendants with a schedule of the corresponding local offences of the committal that they would be proceeding with.
He cautioned that there would be a “long arduous road ahead” and that there would objections at every step of the way.
Forde told the court that the legal teams could not “cull” what are the local offences by going through the documents and that the Authority To Proceed could mean that the court go ahead without ascertaining what are the local corresponding offences.
The attorney said the corresponding local changes are required for him to conduct a cross-examination, saying “it is not as if we want to be difficult but we want to go through this process in a fair manner”.
The United States government had on October 30, 2025, requested the extradition of the 76 year-old businessman and his 38-year -old son after they were accused of multiple charges including wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, conspiracy, aiding and abetting, and customs-related violations connected to an alleged US$50 million gold export and tax evasion scheme.
Attorney Damien Da Silva said the magistrate has no authority to proceed and commit on foreign criminal charges.
But lead prosecutor, Jamaican Terrence Williams, said the charges include computer related fraud, obtaining by false pretence, inducing persons by false declaration, conspiracy to commit money laundering, forged false declarations under the Customs Act.
The Principal Magistrate then insisted and ordered the prosecutor to call the first witness with Williams leading Roopchand-Edwards in telling the court that she received the extradition request, included in a bundle of documents with “yellow and red ribbons” which has the US State Department’s seals and the signature of the US Secretary of State.
The Permanent Secretary said she “perused” the documents to ensure they synchronised with the diplomatic note. She also identified the document by a “unique” diplomatic note number.
But defence lawyer, Siand Dhurjon, said the documents should be disregarded, even as Williams said the Permanent Secretary was not dealing with the substantive facts in the case but “only a conduit” in the process.
“There is no requirement on her to read through the bundle of documents as evidence as to whether or not the condition of the Fugitive Offenders Act were met for a finding on whether there should be an extradition or not,” he said. He said Ms Roopchand-Edwards’ outline was sufficient and so she did not have to state what was contained in them.
Despite the magistrate’s decision, Dhurjon sought to convince the court that the authenticity of the documents were questionable because the Permanent Secretary “gave these documents away” to Home Affairs Minister Walrond she never interacted with her.
He said that there were no unique markings on the diplomatic note, ribbons, seal and the US State Department signature or marked by the witness.
“In extradition cases, the documents have to be marked,” he said
Dhurjon said none of the documents disclosed by the prosecution to the defence had any markings as at no time the Permanent Secretary sought to make the documents her own by writing, for example, her initials and the date on which she first encountered them.
“This frailty is borne out in all of the documents,” he said, adding that there was also the issue of documentary hearsay, and pointed out that the documents are not specifically exempt under the Fugitive Offenders Act or the Evidence Act to be admissible.
He said the documents before the court “could have come from anywhere, could have been created, innovated by anyone,” noting that the amended Fugitive Offenders Act refers to a record of evidence accompanied by an affidavit from an officer of prosecutor, Attorney General or principal law officer.
“It’s most impermissible for evidence such as this to be entered into these proceedings. It is most prejudicial to our client because these are not viva voce proceedings where we will have the ability to question witnesses as to the contents of those documents,” he added.
Prosecutor Herbert McKenzie said in committal proceedings of that nature, “there is no inherent right” to cross examine witnesses.
He said under the Fugitive Offenders Act provides for receiving evidence on paper.
“This is not a trial. The determination of guilt or innocence does not rely here,” he said, adding that the extradition committal hearing was not the forum to test veracity of material submitted.
