Mohameds seek urgent appellate intervention to halt extradition proceedings

United States-indicted businessman Azruddin Mohamed and his father, Nazar Mohamed, have turned to the Court of Appeal of Guyana in an attempt to pause ongoing extradition proceedings, arguing that their broader constitutional appeal should be resolved before the matter progresses further.

In a Notice of Motion filed within the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Judicature of Guyana, the applicants are requesting an immediate suspension of extradition actions until the court determines their substantive appeal. They are also asking that the appeal be treated as urgent and, if the court agrees, that the motion itself be heard as the full appeal.
The Minister of Home Affairs, the Attorney General, and Principal Magistrate Judy Latchman are listed as respondents in the proceedings.

The latest move follows a February 4 decision by acting Chief Justice Navindra Singh, who rejected a High Court application in which the Mohameds claimed that the extradition process was influenced by political bias.

The court ruled that there was no evidence to support allegations that political considerations affected the issuance of the authority to proceed under the Fugitive Offenders Act. The applicants had argued that government officials were prejudiced against Azruddin Mohamed due to his emergence as a political rival during the September 2025 elections.

Their challenge sought to invalidate the authority to proceed, as well as the arrest warrant and extradition hearings currently before the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court. The judge dismissed those claims and awarded costs of $500,000 each to the Attorney General, the Minister of Home Affairs and Magistrate Latchman.

The father and son are also pursuing a separate constitutional case questioning amendments made to the extradition law in 2009. A ruling in that matter is expected shortly.

During arguments in the High Court, Attorney General Anil Nandlall, SC, along with Senior Counsel Douglas Mendes, appearing for Magistrate Latchman, maintained that the Minister of Home Affairs performs an executive — not judicial — function when issuing an authority to proceed.

State attorneys further argued that accepting political bias as a defence could allow individuals facing extradition to shield themselves simply by entering politics. The court ultimately agreed, finding that the minister acted within powers granted by Parliament.

Extradition hearings are scheduled to resume on February 16, although the Mohameds’ latest filing seeks to halt those proceedings pending appellate review.