The extradition hearing against U.S.-indicted businessmen Nazar and Azruddin Mohamed continued on Monday with submissions made by both the prosecution and defence on constitutional issues raised.
Lead Prosecutor Terrence Williams launched a forceful rebuttal to the constitutional challenge mounted by the legal team representing the Mohameds, insisting that citizens have no constitutional or inherent right to a speciality arrangement in extradition proceedings.
He also defined the defence’s application as both “premature” and legally unfounded.
The defence is challenging recent amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act, arguing that the legislative changes infringe on the Mohameds’ right to liberty and undermine their ability to receive a fair legal process. They also asked that the matter be sent to the High Court for determination.
However, Williams maintained that none of the rights invoked by the defence are engaged at this stage of the extradition hearing.
“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,” he told the court.
Williams said Section 8 of the Act contains several restrictions on extradition, but not every restriction creates a constitutional protection. He argued that the recently disclosed diplomatic note, dated Friday, December 5, already shows that the United States gave assurance that no third-party extradition would occur, rendering 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,” Williams said.
Williams submitted that Section 153(3) of the Constitution had not been triggered since no legitimate constitutional question arises from the defence’s arguments.
“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 said.
The prosecution asserted that the defence is attempting to prematurely halt the extradition inquiry.They also dismissed the defence’s reliance on the Barry Dataram case, stating 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 noted.
Williams stressed that extradition does not engage 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” he noted.
Meanwhile, Prosecutor Herbert McKenzie further described extradition as a “hybrid construct” involving both the executive and the judiciary, arising from treaty obligations and grounded in the rights and privileges of the State.
“Extradition is a unique set of proceedings for which the Constitution makes specific provision,” McKenzie said.
Earlier in the hearing, the defence argued that the amendments violate the Constitution and compromise the Mohameds’ right to due process.
They asked for additional time to respond to the prosecution’s oral submissions, which Magistrate Judy Latchman granted allowing them until Tuesday, December 9 to email their written reply.
Latchman reminded the parties that she had already set Wednesday, December 5 for ruling on the constitutional submissions, and stressed that she will proceed with her decision at the next hearing whether or not the defence files its response.
The defence also raised concerns about the late disclosure of the diplomatic note, claiming it introduces new issues of evidence and may require additional witnesses.
The Mohameds remain on $150,000 bail each.
The U.S. government, on October 30, 2025, requested the extradition of the father and son under the extradition treaty between Guyana and the United Kingdom, which remains in force in Guyana under Section 4(1)(a) of the Fugitives Offenders Act, Cap. 10:04, as amended by Act No. 10 of 2024.
The Mohameds are facing multiple charges in the United States, unsealed on October 6, 2025, by a Southern District of Florida Grand Jury. The indictment includes 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.
The post Prosecution rejects Mohameds’ constitutional challenge appeared first on News Room Guyana.
