Principal Magistrate, Judy Latchman, Wednesday dismissed a motion filed by the leader of the main opposition We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), Azruddin Mohamed and his businessman father, Nazar Mohamed, in the latest challenge to their extradition to the United States on fraud related charges.
Attorneys for the Mohameds, Rajiv Persad of Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyanese Roysdale Forde and Siand Dhurjon, had asked the magistrate to refer amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act to the High Court to determine whether they are constitutional.
But the magistrate said virtually all of the issues raised by the defence were already settled by previous decisions by the superior courts such as the High Court.
The Mohameds remain on bail and must report periodically to a police station until the hearing and determination of the proceedings.
Magistrate Latchman has since set January 6, 2026 for substantive arguments to commence after the United States authorities had indicted the WIN leader and his father on charges related to wire and mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering, stemming from tax evasion on gold exports and the importation of a Lamborghini luxury car. They have denied the allegations.
If found guilty on the charges of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, the Mohameds, who were sanctioned by the United States Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) in June last year, could separately face a maximum of 20 years on each count, as well as maximum supervised release of three years, a maximum fine of US$250,000 or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss.
On the charges of wire fraud, the politician businessman could also be sentenced to 20 years imprisonment and maximum supervised release of three years and a fine of US$250,000 or twice the gross pecuniary gain or loss.
The Grand Jury is also seeking a maximum of 20 years imprisonment, three years supervised release and a fine of US$500,000 or the value of the property involved in the transaction for conspiracy to commit money laundering.
Denying the allegations contained in the 11-count indictment, Mohamed said he and his father would fight any extradition request by the United States.
Ahead of the commencement of a hearing to challenge the extradition request, defence lawyer, Siand Dhurjon told the Court that the magistrate’s Authority to Proceed (ATP) is a ‘nullity on law and confers no jurisdiction on you to proceed’.
Admitting that the Court of Appeal had already ruled on that point in a previous case, he said the ATP ‘confers no jurisdiction on your worship to properly proceed to hear this case’.
Dhurjon made it clear that he and his other colleague defence lawyers believe that the Court of Appeal ‘authority we submit is wrong and bad in law.’
He said there’s a settled corpus of law on the point that the ATP must disclose only Guyanese offenses and that the ATP is likened by the case law to the indictment for the charge and that the accused or those requested must have notice under Guyanese law of the allegations to which they must meet or answer.