Attorney General Anil Nandlall on Monday again raised concerns about delays in the extradition proceedings against U.S.-indicted businessmen Azruddin Mohamed and Nazar Mohamed, noting that four months after the United States formally requested their surrender, the matter remains unresolved in the Magistrate’s Court.
The US extradition request was transmitted at the end of October 2025 following indictments issued in the Southern District of Florida. The Mohameds were subsequently arrested and brought before a magistrate, where committal proceedings began under Guyana’s Fugitive Offenders Act.
Since then, the case has been the subject of multiple legal challenges in the High Court.
The Mohameds filed a judicial review challenging aspects of the extradition process. That application was dismissed by the High Court and is now under appeal.
They also mounted a constitutional challenge to amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Act, targeting Sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b), 8(3)(B)(b), and 8(3)(B)(c).
On Monday, Chief Justice (ag) Navindra Singh ruled that three of the four challenged provisions are constitutional. Section 8(3)(B)(b) was declared inconsistent with the Constitution, while Sections 8(3)(A)(a), 8(3)(A)(b), and 8(3)(B)(c) were upheld.
Nandlall said the ruling effectively clears the way for the magistrate proceedings to continue.
Speaking to reporters at the High Court following the decision, the Attorney General said both the constitutional challenge and the earlier judicial review were filed after the magistrate proceedings had already begun.
He argued that despite those High Court matters now being determined, the committal hearing continues to face delays.
Nandlall said that the Magistrate’s Court proceedings have been marked by what he described as deliberate strategies to slow the process, including extensive cross-examination and questions which, he contended, fall outside the narrow scope of extradition hearings.
Under the Fugitive Offenders Act, he said, the magistrate’s role is limited to examining the documents submitted by the requesting state, including the indictment, charges and supporting evidence and determining whether the legal requirements for committal are met.
He maintained that extradition proceedings are not trials and should not expand into broader inquiries beyond the statutory framework.
The Attorney General contrasted the Mohamed matter with the recent extradition case of Guyanese national Ronley Floyd Bynoe.
Bynoe appeared before Acting Chief Magistrate Faith McGusty at the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court and was remanded pending extradition to the United States. He faces charges in Ohio for misuse of a Social Security number, bank fraud and aggravated identity theft.
During his appearance, Bynoe indicated that he did not intend to challenge the extradition request and acknowledged that he understood he would be returned to the United States to face the charges. He was subsequently committed to custody pending extradition.
Nandlall said the Bynoe matter demonstrated how extradition proceedings are ordinarily conducted, noting that the same procedural steps were followed — documents transmitted through diplomatic channels and processed by the relevant ministries before reaching the court.
With the constitutional challenge largely dismissed and the judicial review already thrown out, though now under appeal, the extradition process against the Mohameds remains active in the Georgetown Magistrates’ Court.
The committal hearing is set to continue on Thursday. Unless halted by a successful appeal, the magistrate will determine whether the Mohameds should be committed for surrender to the United States.
The post Four months on, Mohameds’ extradition still unresolved in Magistrates’ Court appeared first on News Room Guyana.
